By  T. Scott Beck

Chairman

South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission

Columbia, SC

When we think of the fall season, we think of change. Changes in the weather, vegetation, and daylight hours. These changes affect nearly all aspects of our daily lives from the way we dress to how we measure time and manage our daily schedules. These changes are usually viewed as the ending of a cycle. Long, warm summer days turn dark and cool. Daylight hours grow shorter affecting daily rhythms in preparation for winter hibernation.

What if we shift our mental focus and view fall not as an ending, but rather, as a beginning. Children return to school to begin another school year. Football season begins. The leaves on the trees begin the senescent processes that yield fantastic displays of beauty and color. The October issue of Lex & Verum is no exception. It is a beginning of new ideas, theories, concepts, and discourse that initiate continued growth for our workers’ compensation systems. This growth forms the foundation upon which we can all build lifelong friendships and professional relationships which allow us to implement positive change across our organizations. The networking aspect of this organization is invaluable.

Think of this fall as a time to begin something new. Chart a new path and participate in the many opportunities the NAWCJ offers. Join us for the Lunch and Learn Series, participate as an attendee or presenter at the New Judge’s Bootcamp, participate in the Moot Court program, volunteer to work on the various committees within the organization, attend The Judicial College, or attempt to become a certified adjudicator. Among the variety of articles in this edition of the Lex & Verum are those describing the innumerable benefits of the College and an explanation of the new certification process.

I want to offer my sincere thanks to Judge Bishop and Commissioner Cording for their efforts putting together the College agenda. It is an arduous task and their commitment to meaningful and relevant education was certainly noteworthy this year. I have been attending the College since 2011 and each year we seem to improve on the past. This year was no exception.

However, beginnings cannot exist without endings. In Latin, the word “equinox” is comprised of two words “aequus” meaning “equal” and “nox” meaning “night.” The autumnal equinox is one of the two times each year when day and night hours are nearly equal. The NAWCJ has entered its “autumnal equinox,” as we have recently completed the 2026 Judicial College

and another leadership term ends. Concurrently, new opportunities to participate in the organization emerge alongside the commencement of a new leadership term.

I thank Sheral Kellar for her outstanding and admirable term of service with our organization. I undoubtedly have large shoes to fill but welcome the honor of serving as the President of the NAWCJ for the next two years. I commit my best efforts to carry on the exemplary work of my predecessors and look forward to the new beginnings we forge together.

And so, the rhythm continues, endings and beginnings coexist in a symbiotic relationship that is in a state of constant change. This change is impossible to escape and so we embrace it, adapt, and move forward together with a renewed understanding and purpose.

By Timothy Conner,

Presiding Judge

TN Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board

Knoxville, TN

 

Even before I was appointed to serve on Tennessee’s Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board in 2014, I had attended what we referred to as the “Florida Workers’ Comp Conference” on multiple occasions. The firm I was with had many regional and national clients who sent representatives to this conference, and it was an excellent opportunity to reinforce personal connections with many of the people I knew and worked with in the industry.

The first time I attended, circa 2005, I was struck by the sheer vastness of the space, the complexity of the operations, and the breadth of the educational offerings. Invitations were flying around to receptions, dinners, break-outs, and client meet-and-greets. Firms had reserved huge suites for parties. Trays of food and cases of alcohol were being carted all over the hotel. Honestly, I was a little overwhelmed. Being a bit of an introvert, I had to work up the chutzpah to jump into the fray.

I have a vivid memory, in approximately 2011, of walking down the long conference corridor toward the hotel lobby and passing by a roped-off area with a sign that read “Adjudicators and Regulators Only.” “Ooh,” I thought, “that sounds intimidating. I wonder what’s going on in there.” I imagined the dais filled with robed, intimidating-looking jurists engaged in high-level intellectual debate. Thankfully, I never tried to sneak into any of those sessions only to get unceremoniously kicked out by Judge Moore.

Fast forward four years, and suddenly, I am one of the attendees walking through those ropes as a new adjudicator. Contrary to my earlier vision of stuffy intellectuals on lofty pedestals (apologies to Judge Langham), what I found inside was a group of extremely nice and highly intelligent folks just trying to do a good job for the employees and employers of their respective states. What’s more, this gathering was not just about getting to know one another (though that is an important and worthy goal), it was to listen to challenging presentations, discuss best practices, become better writers, consider cutting-edge issues, and cajole each other into perhaps thinking about things a little differently.

I love being part of the NAWCJ. I love this conference. As adjudicators, we typically exist in a pretty small bubble. We have to think about things like, “What will it look like if I attend that reception?” and “Can I meet that person for lunch?” and “Can I ? that post?” We cannot call an attorney-friend and ask, “What do you think about this issue?” or “How would you handle this case?” But (and this is a big but), we can and should reach out to fellow adjudicators and bounce ideas off our colleagues, whether they are from our state or another. Despite every jurisdiction having a workers’ compensation law with different provisions and different language, our workers’ compensation laws have more in common than not. And that “issue of first impression” you are struggling with, very likely, has already been addressed in other states. So, taking care to protect any confidential information, pick up the phone and call an adjudicator colleague, who will be more than willing to serve as a sounding board and “idea-bouncer.”

Of course, that kind of “interstate connectivity” would be much more cumbersome without the NAWCJ and the annual Judicial College. That event, more than any other, has led to me connecting with colleagues from California to Rhode Island, from Texas to Wisconsin, from Florida to Maryland, and many states in between. It is hard to overstate the value of those connections when working in an area of law with such “niche” legal concepts.

What’s more, although the core function of the Judicial College is to offer educational opportunities for adjudicators, equally important are the social events, including the lunches, the Monday reception, and the Tuesday night dinner. Those social settings give our members a chance to connect with colleagues on a personal level, and they enhance the value of attending the College.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word “collegiality” was first used in approximately 1887 and means “companionship and cooperation between colleagues who share responsibility.” Today, according to our AI overlords, the word is used only 0.3 times per million words. As an organization, let’s step up and try to increase the frequency of that word’s usage. In doing so, we can increase cooperation to improve processes, all with an ultimate goal of sharing responsibility to create as fair and robust a workers’ compensation system as possible.

By Sheral C. Kellar, Past President

 National Association of Workers’ Compensation Judiciary

Chief Judge, Louisiana Workforce Commission

Baton Rouge, LA

 

On June 17, 2025 the Board of the National Association of Workers’ Compensation Judiciary (NAWCJ) approved an Adjudicator Certification program for members of the Association. This certification offers numerous benefits to both adjudicators and the agencies that employ them. For the organization, certification signifies a more competitive and productive workforce. For the adjudicator, certification offers career-advancing skill development, enhanced marketability and competitiveness, validation of expertise, and proof of knowledge of evolving best practices. Board members believe that, in jurisdictions where workers’ compensation judges are appointed for a specified term, the Adjudicator Certification improves the probability that he/she will be reappointed to their position. Moreover, holding a recognized certification may significantly boost a candidate’s earning ability because the certification is considered an extraordinary qualification or credential. Finally, the certification program is in keeping with the mission of the Association

“… to provide educational forums for the workers’ compensation judiciary concerning issues that are unique to this system of justice. Emphasis is placed on providing an educational source and national forum that will enhance the ability of workers’ compensation judges on a national scale to deal with a commonality of issues, regardless of the substantive laws of the different states.”

The Association’s President, Sheral C. Kellar, appointed a committee of your peers to evaluate the satisfactory completion of established Certification criteria: Judge Shannon Bruno, Louisiana, appointed for a three-year term; Judge Scott Beck, South Carolina, appointed for a two-year term; and Judge Amanda Luedtke, Wisconsin, appointed for a one-year term.

I. Adjudicator Certification requires accumulation of 500 points total, in a combination of the following categories. Certification will be for three years from notification by the Adjudicator Certification Committee.

A. Educational attendance

The applicant shall achieve at least 100, but no more than 250 points in this category within a five-year period.

1. Attendance at specifically judicial education programming, like

a. NAWCJ Judicial College sessions = 5 points per hour.

Attendee is responsible for documenting session attendance by self-photograph with session screen or speaker(s).

b. Other judicial specific programming with pre-approval of the Committee, at a similar 5-points per hour. This may include IAIABC, SAWCA, ABA and other similar programming if specific to adjudication and pre-approved.

Attendee is responsible for documenting session attendance by self-photograph with session screen or speaker(s).

B. Instruction/teaching participation

The applicant shall achieve no more than 200 points in this category within a five-year period.

i. Teaching

1. 1. Lecturing or participating as a panel member in public presentations on substantive law or practice.

a. On the law of the judge’s own state = 20 points per presentation

b. On the law of another state or issues of national import = 30 points per presentation.

c. Lecturing or participating as a panel member in a judicial-specific seminar or training program, including the NAWCJ programs = 40 points per presentation.

d. Serving as a professor or instructor for a substantive semester course at an ABA-accredited law school = 80 points per semester.

e. Serving as a professor or instructor for a substantive semester course at a college or university regarding legal subjects = 60 points per semester.

1. 2.

Participating as a judge at the NAWCJ Zehmer Moot Court Competition and round, in person or virtual = 10 points per round.

ii Mentoring

1. 1. Another adjudicator adjusting to the bench in a state-sanctioned mentor program = 20 points, as certified by the jurisdiction’s chief adjudicator or administrator
   2. A law student or lawyer through a state or Inns of Court sanctioned mentor program = 10 points, as certified by the jurisdiction’s chief adjudicator or administrator.

 

C. Authorship and Editorial Contributions

The applicant shall achieve no more than 200 points in this category within a five-year period.

1. 1. Dissertation of not less than 10,000 words addressing a topic agreed between candidate and the Certification Committee = 50 points.
   2. Drafting and revision of practice regulations, procedural rules, or agency policy = up to 50 points based on extent, complexity, and duration of participation.
   3. Acting as editor of a legal publication

• • • a. State Bar or section newsletter or magazine = 30 points per year of service
    • b. NAWCJ Newsletter = 30 points per year of service
    • c. National or commercial publication on workers’ compensation or adjudication = 40 points per year of service.

4. Authorship of a practice or substantive law analysis published in a recognized journal, state bar, or NAWCJ publication.

• • • a. Word count 2,500-5,000 = 50 points
    • b. Word count over 5,000 = 100 points
    • c. Larger articles considered at the discretion of the Certification Committee

II. Adjudication Recertification will be considered upon proof of the following within the three-year certification period that is expiring.

1. One attendance at either

• • • a. NAWCJ Judicial College = 50 points
    • b. NAWCJ Boot Camp = 20 points

2. 150 points in Instruction/Teaching participation (B. above)

• • • a. This must include presenting individually or on a panel at either the Judicial College or Boot camp, which shall = 40 points each
    • b. This may include presentation at a NAWCJ Lunch and Learn = 10 points each

3. 150 points in either or a combination of authorship and editorial contributions (C. above).

The decisions of the Certification Committee will be final as to recommendation to the Board. Any negative recommendation to the Board may be answered in writing only, submitted no later than 30 days prior to the Annual Board meeting at the Judiciary College in the year in which the application was made. The committee will accept applications, on the prescribed form, each year, due prior to April 1, for consideration of certification or recertification. The application must be accompanied by all supporting information, copies of publications, seminar or class brochures or advertisements, and certification from the jurisdiction’s chief judge or administrator. Certifications and recertifications will be presented, in person, at the NAWCJ annual Judiciary College.

To reiterate, this Adjudicator Certification provides proof of and validates specialized knowledge and skills, boosts confidence, and increases credibility among peers and employers. It also provides networking opportunities with the more than 9,000 workers’ compensation professionals that attend the WCI conference in Orlando in August each year. Finally, certification fosters a sense of accomplishment and pride in one’s career achievements. Agencies that promote certification opportunities demonstrate commitment to employee growth and tend to be more attractive to high-quality candidates seeking engaging and meaningful opportunities.

The NAWCJ Board looks forward to receiving your applications for certification and recertification as Certified Workers’ Compensation Adjudicators.

By Jonathan Walker

Judge

Florida Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims

Pensacola, FL

 

The genesis of this article began with my reading of another article entitled “Bar’s 75th Anniversary Spurs Career Sustainability Initiative” in the May 21, 2025, edition of the Florida Bar News. The writer discusses efforts by Florida Bar President Rosalyn Sia Baker-Barnes to stem the outflow of attorneys from their practice areas throughout the state. To this end, President Baker-Barnes empaneled a special committee to address the issue of sustainability for attorneys in their practices. Various studies spurred her decision. According to Co-Chair G.C. Murray II, Esquire, the 2024 Membership Survey showed that 80% of Florida lawyers under 35 believed the legal profession was “becoming less desirable.” Co-Chair Murray referenced a 2021 Thomson Reuters report that showed a 16% attrition rate at the 100 largest U.S. law firms. Using this figure, the report “calculated that for every 20 lawyers hired, 15 would leave within six years.”

In light of the article, we reviewed the practices of the Florida Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims. This review revealed that our agency has already embarked on numerous programs to encourage both attorneys and their staffers to continue practicing workers’ compensation throughout their careers. Of course, as in other practice areas, workers’ compensation firms in Florida face retention challenges, as highlighted in the insightful article. But with the advent of these programs, our office—in partnership with other stakeholders—works very hard to stem the tide of early departures.

We agree with the article’s premise that busy practices often inhibit the ability of an attorney to slow down and see the 10,000-foot view of what they are doing every day. Without an opportunity to sometimes see a broader picture, the tendency is to become mired in the trees and not see the entire forest. Through program offerings throughout the state, the OJCC and our partners strive to provide opportunities for workers’ compensation lawyers and staff to come together and hear from diverse speakers. Our recent panelists have included appellate judges, compensation claims judges, administrative law judges, experienced lawyers, and industry executives—all of whom brought their unique perspectives on what it is to work in workers’ compensation.

 

Some of the CLE- or CE- approved courses that we have developed include:

 

• Ø OJCC Certified Scholars Program. Begun last year, this intensive, nine-month program gives attorneys and industry professionals a deeper dive into workers’ compensation. Geared toward those in the seven-year to ten-year experience range, participants are nominated by regional JCC panels. A selection committee reviews the nominees and selects 10-12 individuals who have shown exceptional qualities thus far in their careers.

 

• Ø OJCC Academy. In this interactive program, newer lawyers with less than seven years’ experience learn how to try a workers’ compensation case before a JCC. Classes are taught by OJCC judges and experienced trial attorneys in small groups of fewer than ten attorneys.

 

• Ø Workers’ Compensation Winter Seminar. Sponsored by the OJCC and the Workers’ Compensation Institute, this annual, free, day-long program (held at the First District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee) brings together attorneys, adjusters, and employers to learn about changes in workers’ compensation in the past year. A panel of First District Court of Appeal judges also gives their particular insights into workers’ compensation based on their exclusive appellate jurisdiction over our practice area.

 

• Ø Paralegal Masterclass. JCCs and experienced attorneys bring their particular skills to a curriculum designed for the workers’ compensation paralegal. The program emphasizes the Florida Rules of Workers’ Compensation Procedure and the effect of the rules on every aspect of an active law practice. The instructors also discuss ethics, professionalism, and the unlicensed practice of law with the attendees.

Our judges and mediators also have leadership positions in five dedicated workers’ compensation Inns of Court located in Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa, Miami, and Port St. Lucie. While such formats are uncommon, we find that dedicated Inns provide another conduit for workers’ compensation attorneys in these locales to meet one another and learn from the various teams about issues affecting our particular practice. These meetings promote in-person engagement.

We are not alone in our efforts. The Workers’ Compensation Section of the Florida Bar coordinates a multi-day, instructional Forum in Orlando annually, which brings together many members of our community to learn about their chosen profession. The Section convenes Zoom sessions with the JCCs that enable lawyers to tune in to learn about recent developments in the law. The Section also coordinates a successful trial advocacy program that provides instruction to attorneys as taught by experienced lawyers.

Of course, the Workers’ Compensation Institute (WCI) assembles the largest conference of its kind in the country every August in Orlando that is unparalleled in its scope and reach. WCI has also established a Workers’ Compensation Hall of Fame recognizing community leaders, historical perspectives, and this practice.

Together with our partners, the OJCC continues to work on sustaining our workers’ compensation attorneys in our special area of Florida law. But we know that there is more work to be done. For this reason, our judges are continuing to explore new opportunities for the bench and bar to come together as a community to learn from one another. Through this shared learning, our attorneys will begin to see the bigger picture of what it is they do every day. In this way, we hope that an awareness of the greater workers’ compensation industry—and the part they play in it—will encourage our lawyers in their daily work and future careers.

As your states explore career sustainability, we hope that our efforts may inform you on ways for programs to build community and increase the likelihood that an attorney will remain in a chosen practice area.

If you would like to learn more about the OJCC’s sustainability programs for your area, please reach out to us. We would be happy to provide program materials that we use here.

By Robert G. Rasp

Presiding Judge

Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board

Los Angeles District Office, CA

 

Article printed with permission of Robert G. Rasp

 

Position paper presented at 2025 DWC CONFERENCE by Hon. Robert G. Rassp, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Friends Research Institute (friendsresearch.org) [Updated on 1-3-2025]

Disclaimers: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are not those of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Workers’ Compensation, or the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. The opinions expressed herein are based in part on the “Common Rule” 45 CFR 46 that pertains to the ethical
requirements in medical research and the protection of research participants. There is no current legal requirement that 45 CFR 46 applies to injured workers whose claims may involve the use of AI.

 

AI generated “picture of a woman with a parasol.” Thanks goes to Robin Kobayashi, Esq., my editor at LexisNexis.

INTRODUCTION

Artificial Intelligence, or “AI,” is taking our society by storm. When computers first became in wide use in business applications, advances in the programming language would occur every five years or so with upgrades in software development that would cause users of computers to replace old operating systems and download the latest operating system applicable to either their Mac or IBM based computer. Today, software is being upgraded by software itself by at least six versions of machine language. In fact, computer programmers can download software applications that are bundled so that applications can easily be embedded in sophisticated computer programs. Have you used a kiosk at McDonald’s? Or ordered a coffee from Starbucks lately? Machines are now processing our orders at fast food joints thanks to the sophisticated computer programming. You call a Call Center and you never speak to a human being. You see the “Chat” icons for banks and other services with a web site? Those are run by AI based software. If you want to speak to a human being, you usually have to keep repeating “representative!” multiple times, or hit “0” repeatedly, and you might get lucky and get a live person on the phone or in the chat.

Call centers for some companies are now voice activated and responses are via a computer program upon verbal or numerical prompting by the calling party. Most of these programs are driven by AI. AI is now affecting much of our daily lives even though we may not even realize a response to something is driven by a computer program. Your physician interacts with you by physician-patient portals that may be driven by AI via link to your medical records
and the physician’s electronic medical record notes. Did you know that the telehealth appointment you had with your doctor was actually with an avatar while your real doctor was golfing at his favorite course?

So how does AI fit in the context of medicine and law? This article was written by this author as a result of prior notes he utilized for a presentation at the California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery Conference that occurred on August 14, 2024 at the Loews Coronado Island Resort. The title of the program was “Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Workers’ Compensation Law.” The panel consisted of this author (in the capacity of both a workers’ compensation presiding judge and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Friends Research Institute (friendsresearch.org), Dr. Christopher Brigham MD (editor of the AMA Guides To The Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 6th Ed. and principal of emedicine.com), Ray Mieszaniec (COO of Evenup – a legal tech company), and defense attorney Negar Matian (who is using AI applications in her workers’ compensation defense law practice).

Essentially the same panel is presenting the same subject at the 2025 DWC Conferences at the Oakland Marriott in Oakland, California and the Los Angeles LAX Marriott in March 2025 with a couple of presenters who were not on the panel in Coronado.

This author’s presentation focuses on the author’s opinion that guardrails need to be placed in the use of AI in the context of medicine and workers’ compensation litigation. While there is no question that AI development companies have emerged to focus on specific industries, including our own in workers’ compensation claims, a discussion of ethical considerations is necessary as these applications are introduced into our everyday lives. This is especially true in the context of workers’ compensation claims and the role of physicians including treating doctors and medical-legal evaluators.

So how does the legal requirements for medical-legal reporting work if a physician utilizes AI software to review medical records, to communicate with the injured worker, to write reports that are admissible at the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board? Can a defense attorney rely on AI software to write a communication to the employer or claims examiner recommendations for further case handling? Can defense counsel rely on AI to provide an
injured worker’s deposition summary or to develop questions to ask a physician at a deposition? Can counsel delegate writing Points and Authorities, a legal brief, or a Petition for Reconsideration to a generative artificial intelligence based software program? Can a workers’ compensation judge write a decision with the use of an AI program? These questions are all relevant and everyone in the workers compensation system have or will be confronted by the issue of how AI affects the way these cases are handled going forward. What is a legitimate role, if any, of the use of AI in the context of workers’ compensation cases?

CHATGPT

Most of the public’s first exposure to AI occurred in November 2022 with the public launch of ChatGPT which allowed anyone with a computer to seek information from an AI platform. You type in a key word or words and the program would produce a litany of information that the user can obtain from the program. Think in terms of a Google Search on steroids. Sometimes the information would be “garbage in and garbage out” but more on that issue below. Commercial use of AI became the goal of the software developers of AI – how can AI be developed and marketed to assist specific industries in their use of computer based intelligent information processing? The goal was and is to monetize the applications of artificial intelligence to the public from how to apply in the logistics and warehouse industry, medicine, transportation, legal, educational, and research. The potential use of AI is endless.

In fact, on October 28, 2024, Apple, Inc. introduced their iPhone 16 featuring what they are calling “Apple Intelligence” which they advertise as:

• “[a] personal intelligence system that uses generative models and personal context to
  provide relevant intelligence while protecting privacy. It’s a built-in feature of Apple’s
  iOS 18, iPadOS 18, and macOS Sequoia. Apple intelligence offers generative AI tools
  for writing and editing, image creation, and organization. It also includes writing tools,
  summarized notifications, and the ability to search for things in photos and videos.”

What they are not telling us in this advertisement is that “Apple Intelligence” is nothing more than CHAT-GPT.

AI IN MEDICINE IN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

There are two aspects of artificial intelligence that exist in the practice of medicine from an analytical standpoint, not including such things as robotic assisted surgical procedures or other “hands-on” clinical practice. AI in medicine has two forms: (1) predictive analytics and (2) generative AI. Predictive analytics involves such things as AI indicating that a patient has a 75% likelihood of being admitted into an intensive care unit. Generative AI is more prevalent in the context of workers’ compensation related medical practice where for example, a computer program using AI using a large language model writes an article. This author guarantees to you, the reader, that this article was NOT generated by AI. Generative AI involves relationships between people.

Further examples of Generative AI include patient-portal messages which can use conversational interfaces for patients to learn about their diagnosis, treatment options, or prepare for surgery (based on patient’s literacy level), or for patients to self-diagnose a condition. Can Generative AI be used for a medical-legal physician to “write” a medical-legal report? Can a medical-legal physician rely on a commercially available proprietary generative AI program to
review and summarize medical records? There are AI companies who are selling the commercial use of their AI programs that claim, for example, that an accurate summary of 500 pages of prior medical records for an injured worker takes 7 minutes for the AI program to generate. You are reminded that medical records review of over 200 pages are billed by the medical-legal physician at $3.00 per page pursuant to the medical-legal fee schedule under Title 8 Cal. Code of Regulations Sections 9793(n) and 9795. Is an AI generated summary of medical records in a
litigated workers’ compensation case reliable, accurate, credible, and persuasive evidence of the actual records?

AI IN LAW AND IN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIM

The use of AI in a workers’ compensation attorney’s law practice could include such things as researching statutes, regulations, and case law. AI based programs could write a legal brief, a legal article for a legal publication, or establish a best-worst case scenario for the outcome of a claim. AI programs could summarize deposition transcripts of injured workers, witnesses, or physicians. Can an AI application be used by a judge to write a Summary of Evidence, an Opinion On Decision? A Report and Recommendation on a Petition for Reconsideration or Removal?

The use of AI is already embedded in legal search engines that attorneys and judges use every day. When counsel enters a word or phrase into the LexisNexis data base, an AI assisted search engine can and will generate a list of statutes, regulations, and cases that may be pertinent to the search. Are those search engines accurate? Are trial briefs, Points and Authorities, medical or deposition summaries generated by an AI assisted search engine reliable, accurate, credible, and persuasive? Is a judge’s decision or response to a Petition for Reconsideration or Removal reliable, accurate, credible, and persuasive? Can an AI based program write a medical-legal report including providing WPI ratings of an injured worker or write predictive apportionment findings?

Here is an example of an advertisement for a Generative AI subscription that was advertised online:

With the most robust set of capabilties (sic) in the market, “NAME OF AI PROGRAM” helps you:

• 1. Review Documents: Ask complex questions about a batch of documents and receive a substantive analysis complete with citations.
  2. Search a Database: Pinpoint relevant documents within a large database of your files.
  3. Draft Correspondence: Draft tailored letters and emails with speed.
  4. Summarize: Condense long, complex documents into succinct summaries.
  5. Extract Contract Data: Obtain precise information about the content of contracts.
  6. Timeline: Automatically assemble chronologies of events described in your documents.
  7. Contract Policy Compliance: Provide a set of policies to identify non-compliant contract language and receive automated redlines to bring the contracts into compliance.
  8. Prepare for a Deposition: Easily identify pertinent topics and questions for investigative projects of all kinds.

Does this generative AI program replace law clerks, staff attorneys, paralegals, secretaries and first-year attorneys? Do you trust a computer application to guide your legal analysis of what may become a disputed issue? Where are the analytical skills about credibility or issue spotting? Can this program identify legal or factual issues that only a practicing attorney can determine? How do we know that if this generative AI program cannot find a legitimate legal
citation that it will invent a fictitious one instead? What is really irritating about this is that speed is not necessarily quality, accuracy or reliability.

A generative AI program cannot replace an attorney’s gut feelings or ability to smell a rat or to simply know what to ask in a deposition while on the fly during a deposition. Sometimes an attorney’s instincts kick in and will establish a strategy just based on those instincts – which generative AI cannot accomplish. Generative AI does not have human intuition, feelings or empathy.

OVERLAPPING ETHICAL ISSUES

The use of artificial intelligence in the context of workers’ compensation litigation raises significant ethical issues that need to be developed in order to keep pace with the usage of AI. Since no formal ethical code of conduct exists in the use of AI in workers’ compensation litigation, a discussion of some basic premises of ethics in medicine may apply.

The analysis of ethical considerations in the medical-legal context begins with the Belmont Report in 1979 that was adopted by the federal government to apply to any federally funded medical research that involved human participants for new drugs, biologics, or devices. This broad ranging mandate was codified under 45 CFR 26 called the “Common Rule” which applies throughout the United States and has been adopted in our own Health and Safety Code [see Health and Safety Code Sections 24170-24179.5]. While ethical requirements in human subject protections in medical research are mandated by law, no such mandate exists in use of AI in legal or medical-legal applications.

Since there is no law that governs how AI can be used or restricted from use in workers’ compensation litigation, the legal protection of human subjects in medical research community can be analogized to form a framework of protection against abuse of the use of AI in workers’ compensation claims. We are, after all, engaging in a form of social, medical, and legal research just by using artificial intelligence in proposed ways during the course of a workers’
compensation claim. We do not have enough data or experience to draw any conclusions about the short term or long-term effects on a claim or individuals involved in a claim when a party uses AI in the prosecution or defense of a claim. As of today, there are no legal or ethical guardrails in place to limit or regulate the use of AI in litigation. So how do we develop an ethical framework for the use of AI outside of the medical research community? We use medical
research guardrails as a guide for the development of ethical usage of artificial intelligence in both medicine and the law.

The Belmont Report and 45 CFR 46 have a tripartite mandate:

• • (1) Respect for Person – treat people individually and account for individual variances,
    perform research [or in our context – use artificial intelligence] in the best interest of
    a patient.
    (2) Beneficence: medical research must provide a benefit to society and improve
    diagnostics and the treatment of disease [AI should be available to everyone for the
    benefit to individuals and groups of individuals] (3) Justice: – apply the concept of equality in the selection of research participants [the
    benefits of artificial intelligence should be distributed equally among populations and
    individuals].

In addition to the proposed basis for guardrails for the use of AI in medicine and law, there is also the concept in medicine that medical processes follow FAVES: Fair, Appropriate, Valid, Effective, and Safe. You are reminded that in the context of medical-legal evaluations in workers’ compensation cases in California, Title 8 California Code of Regulations Sections 41 and 41.5 govern the ethical considerations for all physicians who perform medical-legal
evaluations. Someday there should be a provision in those sections that indicate that if any part of the medical-legal process is performed with the assistance of an artificial intelligence resource or program, a written disclosure statement shall be part of the physician’s reporting requirements.

POTENTIAL SHORTFALLS OF THE USE OF AI IN WORKERS’
COMPENSATION LITIGATION

There are a number of concerns about the use of artificial intelligence in the context of any form of litigation, especially in workers’ compensation cases. For the use of AI in both law and medicine, the FAVES factors should apply because AI can be misdirected to what is financially favorable to the doctor or claims administrator and not of ultimate benefit to legitimately injured workers. The use of AI by physicians and attorneys should be transparent,
explainable, and subject to inspection. Remember, no one can cross-examine a computer or a computer program or application. How do you cross-examine a medical-legal physician who uses AI to (1) establish a diagnosis, (2) causation of injury, (3) determine WPI ratings, or (4) apportionment? An AI program cannot examine the injured worker can it? Will it some day?

Those of you who are not familiar with the mechanism of artificial intelligence, there are some aspects of it that are very concerning. There are at least six machine languages that have been developed that can allow artificial intelligence programs to write its own codes. Generative AI can have a “hallucination” when it generates a false medical or legal citation. AI programs can deteriorate or drift from when it was first introduced. In addition, AI could invent its own data set that is not based on reality. This phenomenon is called “performance drift” and must be
monitored by human-based evaluation and oversight.

At the time of publication of this article, there is an organization called the “Coalition for Health AI” (chai.org) which has developed what is called an “Assurance Standard Guide” that divides oversight into three categories:

• • (1) AI developer’s Responsibility – evaluate the AI model thoroughly before
    deployment to ensure it meets safety and performance standards
    (2) End-User’s Responsibility – conduct local evaluations to ensure the AI tool
    fits the specific needs and conditions of the health system
    (3) End-User’s Monitoring Responsibility – monitor AI tool performance over
    time, ensuring it remains effective and adapting to any changes in conditions.

The Coalition for Health AI is a public-private oversight organization involving academia, tech companies, and the federal government to develop a national quality assurance laboratory to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of AI in medicine (covering the concept of beneficence). The idea is to prevent AI from making financial decisions in favor of payers rather than decisions benefitting a patient (sounds like UR, doesn’t it?).

Remember, there is no legal mandate (legislative or regulatory) to require these guardrails in the development or use of AI in medicine or in law. The promotors and supporters of the Coalition include major, credible, medical groups including but not limited to UCLA Health, Mayo Clinic, Google, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Boston’s Children’s Hospital, Kaiser Permanente, UC Irvine, UC Davis, UC San Diego and others. The Coalition plans on monitoring AI models use in medicine, developing best practice guidance for developing and deploying health AI technologies on a use case by use case basis, and to publish an AI “report card” on an accessible registry that has public access.

Is there a similar “Coalition for Law AI” that will do the same things as Coalition for Health AI? Not yet – the only “oversight” of AI-based programs currently being marketed to medical-legal physicians and attorneys is the market itself. Software developers are beginning to saturate the market to sell AI based programs to medical-legal physicians, claims administrators, and attorneys to help streamline the processing of information that is needed in the prosecution or defense of workers’ compensation claims.

These include programs that summarize deposition testimony, provide predictive case outcomes based on mechanism of injury and parts of body injured, set loss reserves, summarize 500 pages of medical records in 7 minutes, analyze a mechanism of injury, develop and send a client the “attorney’s” recommendations for further case handling, managing a law practice, answering emails or phone calls from clients.

This raises a serious point: How much inter-rater reliability is there for a summary of medical records that is generated by an artificial intelligence program versus the medical-legal physician actually doing the summary as well? We would like to see a side-by-side comparison of an AI generated medical records summary with one that is actually done by a human QME or AME. Would a 5% variation be acceptable? There are no studies yet on this issue. Further, who does the claims administrator pay the $3.00 per page above 200 pages of records to be reviewed? Doesn’t that alone raise some significant ethical issues for QMEs and AMEs who use artificial intelligence programs to review and summarize medical records?

Artificial intelligence is currently embedded in MS Office (WORD especially) and now in a LexisNexis search. All you have to do is type a word or phrase into the search engine and AI will assist the user to obtain a data base. We already know that some AI based programs have gone awry – a Federal judge in New York received an AI assisted legal brief from an attorney who did not check the legal citations that were generated by the AI program. The judge did check them and discovered that the citations were a figment of the AI program’s imagination – the cited cases never existed. It did not take a computer program to generate sanctions against the attorney who filed the AI generated brief.

Counsel is strongly advised to check their work.

ETHICAL CODE OF CONDUCT?

AI is creeping into our everyday lives. Artificial intelligence is becoming part of our normal day to day lives. AI is being used even when you do not know it. Artificial intelligence programmers can take the likeness of any person, say Taylor Swift for example, and generate what is known now as a “deepfake” which generates her likeness in an AI generated image and uses her voice to say anything the programmers want that sounds like her real voice. The introduction of our AI seminar at the CSIMS conference in Coronado Island in August 2024 used the likeness of Scarlett Johansson and her voice in a video that was developed using AI. The image and sound were very real but the actual person and her voice were not.

So how would the Belmont Report of 1979 along with the protections of human research participants apply in the context of the use of predictive analytics and generative AI in medicine and law? Respect for persons: (1) there needs to be transparency on how patient data is being used, (2) clarity of the role AI is being used in decision making, and (3) allowing regulators access to the algorithms. Beneficence: A patient should be able to decline using AI as part of the informed consent process. An injured worker should be told that the utilization review process may be determined by AI but the injured worker will be provided reasonable treatment to cure or relieve the effects of the injury that is based on the medical treatment utilization schedule in ACOEM upon review by a licensed physician and/or a licensed physician through the Utilization Review and Independent Medical Review processes of Labor Code Sections 4610, 4610.5 and 4610.6. Justice: any decision making process or review of a record by artificial intelligence is subject to scrutiny by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.

Here is an ethical issue: can a treating physician create an avatar who meets with the patient electronically? Is a physician obligated to disclose to a patient that some of the interactions between the patient and the doctor’s office is through an avatar or otherwise from an artificial intelligence based application? Does a physician have to disclose that the probable outcome of surgery is based on a predictive analytics algorithm from an AI program?

An AI based algorithm has to be “fair” one that provides the same treatment recommendation for all patients with the same clinical features. Can AI undermine physicians’ or attorneys’ professional role as a fiduciary for a patient’s or client’s best interests? Ethical considerations exist in both the medical and legal fields of practice. Attorneys are bound by the Code of Professional Conduct [See Business and Professions Code Sections 6000 et. seq.] and physicians are bound by their own professional standards and ethics. Specifically, Title 8 Cal. Code of Regulations Sections 41 and 41.5 govern the ethical considerations for medical-legal evaluators.

DISCLOSURE-DISCLOSURE-DISCLOSURE!

There is no formal code of conduct in medicine or in law as to the limitations by practitioners of the use of applications programmed with artificial intelligence. There need to be guardrails along the use of both predictive analytics and generative AI in medicine and law. We need to look to the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the federal Office of Human Research Protections for guidance. Meanwhile, the California Business and Professions Code or the Rules of Professional Conduct do not cover ethical considerations for attorneys’ use of predictive analytics or generative AI in a law practice. There has to be a movement to build public trust in the use of artificial intelligence in medicine and in the courtroom. A lawyer, like a doctor, has a fiduciary duty to their client. There should be a requirement that if a physician, an attorney or a judge writes anything using generative AI, the physician, the attorney or the judge has to disclose its use and to attest to its authenticity and
accuracy.

After all, the attorney or physician owns what is written and has to defend its contents. The missing element from written articles or reports that are generated by artificial intelligence is the style or uniqueness of the writer’s prose. There is almost an innate ability to tell when something was written by a machine and not by a person. All of us have a certain style of writing and there is always a human touch to how it reads. This article for example has some
clunky word usage to it that are a product of this author’s unique writing style. The tone and emotion of writing is missing from AI generated prose. You can tell it was not written by a human. It just does not pass the smell test. But the AI-based applications will improve over time.

The narrative of the concept of disclosure is not new or foreign in the practice of medicine or in the practice of law. Informed consent is the hallmark of any fiduciary relationship between a patient and their physician or between a client and their attorney. If any part of a workers’ compensation claim has been run through an artificial intelligence application by a physician or injured worker’s attorney, the injured worker should have knowledge of that fact.
The metrics that are offered for claims administrators are limited as well – no one can predict the outcome of a claim – not every lumbar spinal fusion surgery has the same outcome. Predictive AI probably has very little use in the legal profession other than to give a claims examiner, risk manager, or defense attorney a “best case” and “worse case” scenario that a good defense attorney could already do just by reading the case file.

I SENSE DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!

Do you remember Robot in the television show, “Lost In Space?” So how far can a medical-legal physician rely on a currently marketed application that is based on generative artificial intelligence to write a medical-legal report? Can a physician utilize a program that uses generative artificial intelligence to write a summary of 500 pages of medical and legal records?
What about our anti-ghost-writing statute?

Since this article is written about workers’ compensation claims and the use of predictive analytics and generative AI within the workers’ compensation community, a direct quotation of California Labor Code Section 4628 is appropriate. Labor Code Section 4628 is the “ghostwriting” prohibition that says the medical-legal physician writes and signs the report and must disclose who else contributed to the medical-legal evaluation process and report writing process.
Here is Labor Code Section 4628 in its entirety:

• • 4628(a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), no person, other than the
    physician who signs the medical-legal report, except a nurse performing
    those functions routinely performed by a nurse, such as taking blood
    pressure, shall examine the injured employee or participate in the nonclerical preparation of the report, including all of the following:
  • (1) Taking a complete history.
  • (2) Reviewing and summarizing prior medical records.
  • (3) Composing and drafting the conclusions of the report.
  • (b) The report shall disclose the date when and location where the
    evaluation was performed; that the physician or physicians signing the
    report actually performed the evaluation; whether the evaluation
    performed and the time spent performing the evaluation was in
    compliance with the guidelines established by the administrative
    director pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (j) of Section
    139.2 or Section 5307.6 and shall disclose the name and qualifications of
    each person who performed any services in connection with the report,
    including diagnostic studies, other than its clerical preparation. If the
    report discloses that the evaluation performed or the time spent
    performing the evaluation was not in compliance with the guidelines
    established by the administrative director, the report shall explain, in
    detail, any variance and the reason or reasons therefor.
  • (c) If the initial outline of a patient’s history or excerpting of prior
    medical records is not done by the physician, the physician shall review
    the excerpts and the entire outline and shall make additional inquiries
    and examinations as are necessary and appropriate to identify and
    determine the relevant medical issues.
  • (d) No amount may be charged in excess of the direct charges for the
    physician’s professional services and the reasonable costs of laboratory
    examinations, diagnostic studies, and other medical tests, and
    reasonable costs of clerical expense necessary to producing the report.
    Direct charges for the physician’s professional services shall include
    reasonable overhead expense.
  • (e) Failure to comply with the requirements of this section shall make
    the report inadmissible as evidence and shall eliminate any liability for
    payment of any medical-legal expense incurred in connection with the
    report.
  • (f) Knowing failure to comply with the requirements of this section shall
    subject the physician to a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars
    ($1,000) for each violation to be assessed by a workers’ compensation
    judge or the appeals board. All civil penalties collected under this
    section shall be deposited in the Workers’ Compensation Administration
    Revolving Fund.
  • (g) A physician who is assessed a civil penalty under this section may be
    terminated, suspended, or placed on probation as a qualified medical
    evaluator pursuant to subdivisions (k) and (l) of Section 139.2.
  • (h) Knowing failure to comply with the requirements of this section
    shall subject the physician to contempt pursuant to the judicial powers
    vested in the appeals board.
  • (i) Any person billing for medical-legal evaluations, diagnostic
    procedures, or diagnostic services performed by persons other than
    those employed by the reporting physician or physicians, or a medical
    corporation owned by the reporting physician or physicians shall
    specify the amount paid or to be paid to those persons for the
    evaluations, procedures, or services. This subdivision shall not apply to
    any procedure or service defined or valued pursuant to Section 5307.1.
  • (j) The report shall contain a declaration by the physician signing the
    report, under penalty of perjury, stating:
    “I declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in
    this report and its attachments, if any, is true and correct to the best of
    my knowledge and belief, except as to information that I have indicated
    I received from others. As to that information, I declare under penalty
    of perjury that the information accurately describes the information
    provided to me and, except as noted herein, that I believe it to be true.”
    The foregoing declaration shall be dated and signed by the reporting
    physician and shall indicate the county wherein it was signed.
  • (k) The physician shall provide a curriculum vitae upon request by a
    party and include a statement concerning the percent of the physician’s
    total practice time that is annually devoted to medical treatment.

CONCLUSION – FOR LAWYERS AND JUDGES

There must be a movement to build public trust in the use of AI in medicine and in the courtroom. A lawyer, like a doctor, has a fiduciary duty to their client. There should be a requirement that if an attorney or a judge writes anything using AI, the attorney or judge has to disclose its use. For goodness sakes, check your work! Double check the citations that are generated by the software and read the actual cases to verify the authority you are citing. No one
can cross-examine a computer or its programming.

CONCLUSION – FOR MEDICAL-LEGAL PHYSICIANS

Is Labor Code Section 4628 a full stop for medical-legal physicians to use generative AI in their report writing process? Can a medical-legal physician use AI to summarize medical records? Could a judge disallow payment and deem a medical-legal report inadmissible because the evaluating physician was assisted by AI in the generation of the report? Regulations and case law may be necessary to answer these questions. In the meantime, we can look forward to some
ethical considerations within the medical, medical-legal, and legal communities in the use of predictive analytics and generative AI since artificial intelligence in general is rapidly becoming part of our daily lives as human beings.

CONCLUSION – THE ULTIMATE GUARDRAILS FOR INJURED
WORKERS

Is there potential civil liability of the owners and developers of proprietary artificial intelligence software that generates a deepfake image of an injured worker, their attorney, or a proprietary generative AI program that has an inaccurate medical record summary or claim analysis that a QME, AME, employer, or claims examiner relies on? The ultimate guardrail against harm by a software company who sells artificial intelligence programs to participants in a
workers’ compensation claim is a civil lawsuit against the AI developers in Superior Court for damages in addition to costs, sanctions and attorney’s fees in the workers’ compensation case at the WCAB against am applicant or defendant who misuses AI.

The ultimate responsibility of anyone who utilizes any form of artificial intelligence in the course of a workers’ compensation case is full disclosure by the person or persons who utilize AI during any step along the claims process. There needs to be regulations, industry standards, or other required ethical considerations that any use of AI by any person involved in a workers compensation case be fully disclosed to any affected participant in that case. Generative and predictive analytics by artificial intelligence does not have a human touch. No one knows what software was written by a human and what was written by a machine.

In addition, there should be required written disclosure that AI was utilized and how it was utilized with some form of assurance that a human being reviewed information that was generated by an AI program before any substantive decision making was made by a human being concerning all aspects of a claim. There is absolutely no room for deception in the course of a workers’ compensation claim since every judge has a duty to decide the rights and obligations of parties based on the evidence admitted at trial. That evidence has to be valid, reliable, accurate,
credible, and persuasive. A computer software system that uses artificial intelligence cannot make those determinations for us. There must be a human touch from claim form to claim resolution.

Postscript: The author of this article wants to acknowledge the essay “The Ethics of
Relational AI – Expanding and Implementing The Belmont Principles” by Ida Sim M.D. Ph.D.
and Christine Cassel MD., New England Journal of Medicine, 391:3, July 18, 2024, pp. 193-196.

© 2024 Robert G. Rassp, all rights reserved.

 

 

By Linda Dumont, Esq.

Higgins, Cavanagh & Cooney

Providence, RI

 

I. Introduction

In the Rhode Island Workers’ Compensation Court—as in many states—an increasing number of injured workers appear before the bench without legal representation. The prevalence of self-represented (pro se) litigants presents both a challenge and an opportunity for the judiciary. Workers’ compensation was designed to provide a streamlined, accessible path to recovery for injured employees, yet for many claimants, the process is far from intuitive.

Judges find themselves walking a tightrope: upholding impartiality while ensuring that claimants who lack legal training are not unfairly prejudiced. This article explores how judges can and do strike that balance—particularly in Rhode Island—while drawing lessons from other jurisdictions and broader national practices. The goal is to articulate practical strategies and ethical considerations for judges navigating the unique procedural and human complexities of pro se litigation in workers’ compensation.

II. The Rise of Pro Se Litigants in Workers’ Compensation

While the right to self-representation is firmly rooted in American jurisprudence, its practical implications in specialized courts such as workers’ compensation require careful scrutiny. Unlike civil or criminal courts, workers’ compensation tribunals often operate under different rules of evidence and procedure—sometimes applying relaxed standards—which can create an appearance of informality. That appearance may mislead litigants into believing the process is simpler than it truly is.

In Rhode Island, a growing percentage of claimants initiate or defend petitions pro se, particularly in cases involving minor injuries, denials of temporary disability, or disputes over medical authorizations. Economic constraints, dissatisfaction with available counsel, and the perception that the system is navigable without legal training all contribute to this trend.

But despite the informal tone of many hearings, the underlying legal complexity remains, especially at the trial stage. Some litigants, dissatisfied with how their counsel is handling pretrial matters, dismiss their attorneys before reaching trial—a stage that is difficult to navigate even with legal training, let alone without it as a layperson. At trial, litigants must present medical evidence, respond to procedural orders, and evaluate the long-term implications of settlements—all of which may be unfamiliar territory for someone without a legal background.

III. Judicial Challenges in Pro Se Context

Presiding over a case involving a pro se litigant demands more than legal expertise—it calls for patience, clear communication, and careful ethical navigation. Judges must simultaneously protect due process, ensure procedural compliance, and avoid the appearance of advocacy.

From my observations as a law clerk at the Rhode Island Workers’ Compensation Court, presiding over trials and hearing arguments presented by pro se litigants is particularly challenging. Not challenging in the sense that a judge must go beyond what is judicially appropriate, but rather on the mental and emotional level. Many judges I have spoken with stated that, when they first entered the bench, they were advised to balance sympathy and empathy with strict adherence to the law—to “not remove the human from the law,” but at the same time to always follow it. In a way, this advice is inherently contradictory, as the law does not deal in emotions.

Many judges are former plaintiffs’ attorneys who practiced for years advocating for injured employees, and it can be difficult for them to sit back and watch a pro se litigant struggle. Thus, they must know when to step in—especially if opposing counsel appears to be taking advantage of an unrepresented party—and when to step back. Judges in the Workers’ Compensation Court are permitted to ask clarifying questions, but if they ask too many, it may appear that they are helping one side. On the other hand, if a judge asks no clarifying questions, there is a risk of an unjust outcome simply because a litigant did not understand what was required.

Judges are not obligated to “level the playing field,” but they are required to ensure fairness. However, the question remains: is it fair to treat a pro se litigant as if they were an attorney? Some judges would say yes, if they choose to continue unrepresented, then it is fair to treat them equally. One judge even pointed to a Rhode Island Supreme Court case that states “[a litigant] has the right to be represented by counsel or not as he chooses, and undoubtedly, he may dismiss his counsel. But if he does so while the trial is proceeding, it is at his own peril.” State v. Lee, 78 R.I. 46, 48, 78 A.2d 793, 794 (R.I. 1951). Other judges would say no, you need to explain things more to them and at least walk them through the procedural requirements. In practice, that often means asking questions to clarify a record, offering explanations of procedure in plain language, and being flexible with minor procedural errors—while still preserving the integrity of the adversarial process.

Opposing counsel also face ethical dilemmas in these cases. Some attorneys adopt a cooperative posture, while others worry that judicial latitude toward pro se litigants might disadvantage their client. Judges must manage this dynamic carefully, sometimes mediating tensions between what feels fair and what the law demands.

IV. A Comparative Glimpse: National Practices

Other jurisdictions have developed innovative approaches to supporting pro se litigants in workers’ compensation proceedings, without crossing judicial ethical boundaries. These models provide important points of comparison for Rhode Island, where no formal infrastructure currently exists beyond judicial discretion and limited clerk assistance.

In New York, the Workers’ Compensation Board has invested in robust educational resources. The Board hosts recorded webinars, such as Workers’ Comp 1010 with the Advocate for Injured Workers and Workers’ Comp 202 – Best Practices to Access Benefits for Workers, which walks injured workers and attorneys, through benefit access and procedural expectations. See N.Y. Workers’ Compensation Bd., Recorded Webinars (2025), available at https://www.wcb.ny.gov/webinars/recorded-webinars.jsp. Additionally, the Board also publishes video tutorials on how to participate in virtual hearings, ensuring that unrepresented claimants understand how to appear remotely and present their cases effectively. N.Y. Workers’ Compensation Bd., Virtual Hearings (2025), available at https://www.wcb.ny.gov/virtual-hearings/. These resources extend judicial accessibility outside the courtroom, providing pro se litigants with tools to prepare in advance.

California offers another model through its network of Information & Assistance Officers (I&A Officers), who provide neutral procedural guidance to unrepresented claimants. Cal. Dep’t of Indus. Relations, Information & Assistance Unit (2025), available at https://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/IandA.htm. The I&A Officers have been given jurisdiction to assist workers’ compensation litigants through the California Legislators. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 9927. I&A officers assist workers in the workers’ compensation system to understand how to fill out required forms, deadlines, and settlement agreements, and they often contact claimants directly to ensure they understand the ramifications of compromise and release documents before judicial approval. Importantly, their mandate is strictly limited to providing information—not legal advice—thereby respecting the adversarial structure of the system while improving fairness.

Tennessee and Virginia have adopted a similar framework with the use of ombudsman programs. In Tennessee, ombudsmen are available by phone or in person to explain procedural requirements, burdens of proof, and evidentiary expectations. See Robert Wilson, On Their Own: Self-Represented Injured Workers (Apr. 10, 2024), available at https://workcompcollege.com/on-their-own-self-represented-injured-workers/.

Rhode Island has not formally adopted similar support structures, leaving much of the burden on judges and clerks. However, the state’s compact bench and high-touch courtroom style give judges a unique ability to observe patterns and adapt their approach to each litigant. Interviewed judges described informal adaptations—such as explaining what to expect before the hearing begins—that have helped mitigate misunderstandings.

Despite these efforts, structural change may be warranted. A dedicated pro se liaison or informational portal could help bridge the gap between judicial restraint and litigant support, particularly for individuals with language barriers, disabilities, or low literacy.

V. Ethical and Due Process Considerations

The presence of pro se litigants challenges the judicial branch to remain neutral while ensuring that each party receives a fair opportunity to present their case. This tension is particularly acute in workers’ compensation courts, where the judge is not only the fact-finder but also the gatekeeper of the process.

Under the Rhode Island Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are required to “perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently” (Canon 2) and to “uphold and apply the law and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially” (Canon 3). While these canons do not prohibit judges from offering clarifications or using plain language, they caution against any conduct that could be perceived as favoring one party.

However, ethical guidance from both Rhode Island and the American Bar Association (ABA) increasingly recognizes that equitable access to justice may require active engagement with pro

se parties. In ABA Formal Opinion 478, for instance, the Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility noted that a judge’s obligation to ensure a fair hearing may justify certain “non-prejudicial accommodations,” such as explaining legal terms or summarizing procedural requirements. See ABA Model Rule 2.2.

VI. Strategies and Best Practices

Given these constraints, many judges develop individualized strategies to maintain neutrality while making their courtrooms more accessible to pro se litigants. Through interviews with Rhode Island judges and national review, several themes emerged as best practices:

1. Use of Plain Language

Judges can and often do rephrase legal terminology into plain English during hearings. Instead of saying, “You must establish causation,” they may ask, “Can you explain how the injury happened and how it’s connected to your job?” This approach preserves neutrality while ensuring the record is clear and comprehensible.

2. Procedural Flexibility Where Appropriate

Many judges apply “practical justice” when it comes to procedural deadlines, especially for non-substantive issues. Allowing an extra week to file medical records or granting continuances when a pro se litigant misunderstands filing requirements can prevent unnecessary dismissals while still respecting the opposing party’s rights.

3. Pre-Hearing Orientation

Some judges offer a short, scripted explanation at the beginning of a hearing day that outlines the structure of the hearing, what evidence is, and how testimony works. This helps all litigants—represented or not—better understand the expectations.

As one judge explained, “It’s like laying the rules of the game before the first whistle. Everyone listens, and no one feels singled out.”

4. Encouraging Use of Mediation or Informal Resolution

Rhode Island allows for informal resolution or pretrial mediation in many workers’ compensation disputes. The Rhode Island Workers’ Compensation Court has even developed a free court-run mediation program that is available to all litigants under the jurisdiction of the court. Judges often suggest that pro se parties consider mediation, particularly in cases where settlement might be appropriate, but the claimant lacks the legal framework to negotiate effectively.

5. Enhancing the Record Without Overreaching

Some judges will ask clarifying questions to elicit necessary testimony, especially when it appears the pro se litigant has relevant information but is struggling to frame it properly. This not only ensures a more complete record for appellate review but also helps surface the facts necessary for a fair decision.

6. Judicial Self-Training and Peer Discussion

Given the absence of formal guidelines, many judges develop their approach through experience and dialogue with colleagues. Peer learning and training sessions—especially those focused on judicial ethics and procedural fairness—have been cited as essential tools for navigating this terrain.

VII. Conclusion

The rise of pro se litigants in Rhode Island’s Workers’ Compensation Court challenges judges to balance impartiality with the need to ensure fair proceedings. While the system is designed to be accessible, its procedural demands often overwhelm unrepresented claimants. Judges must carefully navigate their role—remaining neutral while using plain language, offering limited procedural guidance, and ensuring a complete and fair record.

Though informal strategies have helped, broader structural support is lacking. National models—such as informational officers, pre-hearing education, and online resources—demonstrate that courts can enhance access without compromising judicial ethics. As the number of pro se claimants grows, Rhode Island has an opportunity to lead in building a more responsive and equitable approach.

Ensuring justice in these cases requires more than neutrality—it requires intentional, thoughtful engagement from the bench and beyond.

Louisiana

 

Joseph “Jay” Albe, Jr., joined the Office of Workers’ Compensation Administration (OWCA) as the District Judge in Shreveport, Louisiana. As the District Judge, Judge Albe will conduct judicial hearings and trials in the district office by presiding over workers’ compensation claims and rendering final appealable judgments. Prior to this appointment, Judge Albe litigated cases in Federal and State Courts in the areas of workers’ compensation, personal injury, business litigation, criminal and family law, and served as a principle in his last firm. Judge Albe received a B.S. in Business Management from the University of Phoenix in 2002, and a J.D. from Regent University in 2007. He and his wife Angela have three sons – Bryce, Joshua and Alexander.

 

Dona K. Renegar joined the Office of Workers’ Compensation Administration (OWCA) as the District Judge in Alexandria, Louisiana after a career with the Legal Service Corporation and in private practice. Judge Renegar received two B.A. degrees, in English and in French, magna cum laude, in 1988 from the University of Louisiana–Lafayette. She earned her J.D., cum laude, in 1992 from Tulane University Law School and was admitted to the Louisiana Bar that same year. Judge Renegar has been very involved with the Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA) where she also served as the 2016-2017 president. She is also a frequent and in-demand speaker at continuing legal education programs. In her community, she has been an instructor for the “Parents and the Law” course and is an avid supporter of University of Louisiana–Lafayette athletics.

 

Rhode Island

 

Recently, the Rhode Island General Assembly passed the annual Workers’ Compensation Omnibus Bill endorsed by the Workers’ Compensation Advisory Council that contained provisions to clarify very the specific and narrow role the R.I. Workers’ Compensation Court should play when hearing disputes involving Injured On Duty (IOD) claims which involve certain classes of Rhode Island first responder and law enforcement officers who are injured during their employment.

As was discussed during a recent Lunch & Learn Presentation, first Responders in Rhode Island do not collect workers’ compensation benefits but have their own parallel system called I.O.D. which pays them their full salary, tax free, during their period of impairment.

The Governor of Rhode Island (Daniel McKee) signed the Omnibus Bill into law on June 23, 2025 and the clarifying provisions are effective for all new petitions/disputes on or after July 1, 2025.

New Award in Rhode Island

 

he R.I. Workers’ Compensation Court at a recent state educational conference announced a new perpetual award for notable lifetime achievements in contributing to the Rhode Island Workers’ Compensation System. The new award will be given annually and is to bear the name of the first recipient: Chief Judge George E. Healy, Jr.

 Judge Healy retired 9 years ago as Chief Judge of the R.I. Workers’ Compensation Court capping a super successful career in the field of Workers’ Compensation as a defense attorney, leader of the 1990 & 1992 reforms in the state system which saw conversion of the state’s workers’ compensation commission into a full fledged Court. Judge Healy went on to eventually serve as a Judge on the Court and spent a decade as its Chief Judge.

Since his retirement from the Bench he continued to serve as a mediator for the Court and as a member of the Workers’ Compensation Advisory Council which advises on all things Workers’ Compensation related in Rhode Island.

His legacy includes creation of the Young Employee Safety Program (Y.E.S. R.I.) which brings judges, lawyers and safety people into area high schools to educate the students on their rights in the workplace and most importantly how to work safely and thus avoid injury altogether.

Hereinafter the George E. Healy, Jr. Lifetime Achievement Award will be bestowed on deserving individuals who have made similar contributions to the R.I. system, but all were in agreement with current Chief Judge Robert M. Ferrieri’s proclamation while announcing and surprising Chief Judge Healy with the award, that there was no more appropriate or deserving recipient for the inaugural installment of the award than retired Chief Judge Healy.

 

Georgia

 

In May, Governor Brian P. Kemp announced the reappointment of Judge Ben Vinson as Chairman and Judge Frank McKay as Director of the Georgia State Board of Workers’ Compensation for terms of office expiring May 1, 2029. They join Judge Neera Bahl, who was reappointed in 2024, in continuing to serve the State of Georgia with strong leadership in the workers’ compensation realm. Congratulations to these three members of the NAWCJ.

Virginia

 

 

The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission Welcomes Two New Deputy Commissioners

[Richmond, VA]- The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission welcomed two new Deputy Commissioners, Frederick T. Schubert II and Christopher R. Wilson, during a Swearing-In Ceremony at the Commission’s headquarters yesterday. Both Schubert and Wilson will serve as administrative law judges under the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act and hold evidentiary hearings at the Commission’s Manassas Regional Office. Deputy Commissioner Frederick T. (Ted) Schubert II graduated from the University of Virginia with a B.A. in Economics in 1988. He graduated from the Cumberland School of Law of Samford University, cum laude, in 1992, where he was a member of the Cumberland Law Review in 1991 and 1992. Schubert was admitted to the Virginia bar in 1992. He practiced with the firm of Goddin, Major, Schubert & Hyman, in Richmond, Virginia, from June 1992 through August 1993. He practiced with the firm of King & Higgs, P.C., in Roanoke, Virginia, as an associate from August 1993 through June 1997.  Most recently, he practiced with the firm of Midkiff, Muncie, & Ross, P.C., in Richmond, Virginia, from June of 1997 through April 9, 2025, where he served as a Director and Co-Chair of the firm’s Workers’ Compensation Section. Schubert has tried and mediated workers’ compensation cases across Virginia and handled appeals before the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission and the Virginia Court of Appeals.  He has an AV rating by Martindale-Hubbell. His greatest accomplishments are his marriage of 31 years (Beth) and his two grown sons (Ted and Ben). Deputy Commissioner Christopher R. Wilson graduated with a bachelor’s degree in government from the University of Texas at Austin and received his Juris Doctor degree from Washington and Lee University School of Law. Wilson completed internships with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia and the Department of Health and Human Services. He worked for many years in private practice with the firm of Kalbaugh, Pfund & Messersmith, P.C., representing employers and insurers before the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission. Two Deputy Commissioners have retired from the Commission in 2025, Deborah “Debbie” Wood Blevins (Roanoke) and Susan E. Cummins (Fairfax). Additionally, Deputy Commissioner Jimese P. Sherrill (Manassas) will retire in June 2025. The Commission is grateful for their many years of service to the citizens of the Commonwealth while upholding the mission, vision and values of the Commission. Congratulations to each on their well-deserved retirement. About The Commission The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission (VWC) has 13 departments under two major divisions, Administration and Judicial. VWC is led by three appointed Commissioners: Chairman Wesley G. Marshall, Commissioner R. Ferrell Newman, and Commissioner Robert A. Rapaport. Chief Deputy Commissioner James Szablewicz provides senior leadership for the Judicial Division. Evelyn V. McGill is the Executive Director, responsible for the Administrative Division and day-to-day operations of VWC. The organization has been operating since 1918. VWC also administers the [virginiavictimsfund.org]Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund, the Uninsured Employer’s Fund, and adjudicates claims under the Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Program. VWC hosts an annual educational conference and exhibition, in partnership with the International Workers’ Compensation Foundation (IWCF), to help its stakeholders better understand the workers’ compensation system in Virginia. To learn more about VWC’s operational activities over the past year, read the latest VWC Annual Report here. The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, and has offices and hearing locations across the state. For more information about the Virginia Workers Compensation Commission, visit the Commission’s website. For more information about this topic, or to schedule an interview, please email Charles Steepleton or call 877-664-2566.

 

 

VWC Team Celebrates Executive Director’s 2025 Leadership Recognition and Top Workplaces Awards

[Richmond, VA]– The recent Top Workplaces event, hosted by the Richmond Times-Dispatch, gave the Commission plenty of reasons to celebrate—most notably, a special honor recognizing Executive Director Evelyn V. McGill. This year, McGill was proudly awarded the 2025 Leadership Award in the Midsize Companies category (125-399 employees). Commission Chairman Wesley G. Marshall shared his enthusiasm, saying, “We are extremely proud of Evelyn being recognized as this year’s top leader. Evelyn brings heartfelt positivity and professionalism to her work every day and she empowers our team to excel. Our special recognition for the mid-sized category reflects the commitment of our team as we pursue our mission as stewards of the public’s trust.” The Top Workplaces awards spotlight organizations that prioritize a people-first culture; demonstrating that the success of any organization starts with valuing its employees. The Leadership Award specifically spotlights exceptional workplace environments through leadership practices. All recognition is calculated based directly on anonymous employee feedback. Click here to read the Richmond Times-Dispatch Top Workplaces Special Awards article, or here for the .pdf version. Click here to view the Commission’s feature from the recent Richmond Times-Dispatch article (subscription may be required), or click here for the .pdf version. About The Commission The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission (VWC) has 13 departments under two major divisions, Administration and Judicial. VWC is led by three appointed Commissioners: Chairman Wesley G. Marshall, Commissioner R. Ferrell Newman, and Commissioner Robert A. Rapaport. Chief Deputy Commissioner James Szablewicz provides senior leadership for the Judicial Division. Evelyn V. McGill is the Executive Director, responsible for the Administrative Division and day-to-day operations of VWC. The organization has been operating since 1918. VWC also administers the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund, the Uninsured Employer’s Fund, and adjudicates claims under the Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Program. VWC hosts an annual educational conference and exhibition, in partnership with the International Workers’ Compensation Foundation (IWCF), to help its stakeholders better understand the workers’ compensation system in Virginia. To learn more about VWC’s operational activities over the past year, read the latest VWC Annual Report here. The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, and has offices and hearing locations across the state. For more information about the Virginia Workers Compensation Commission, visit the Commission’s website. For more information about this topic, or to schedule an interview, please email Charles Steepleton or call 877-664-2566.

 

South Carolina

 

 

Kristen S. McRee, Esq. has been appointed Executive Director by the South Carolina Workers’
Compensation Commission. She will assume the position effective November 1, 2025. Ms. McRee will be responsible for the Commission’s administrative operations and serves at the pleasure of the Full Commission.

Mrs. McRee joined the Commission in March 2021 as a staff attorney working in the Commission’s Legal Department. On August 17, 2023, she was promoted to Director of Administrative Services. As Administrative Services Director she has been responsible for monitoring compliance with state and federal laws, developing internal policies and procedures, overseeing the Commission finance and budgetary operations and transactions, administering the human resources program, and providing stakeholder outreach to various groups.

Prior to her tenure at the Commission, Mrs. McRee practiced workers’ compensation law in the private sector representing both claimants and employer/carriers. In addition to her workers’ compensation experience, Mrs. McRee has demonstrated a deep commitment to public service throughout her professional career. She has served as a staff member in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and a legal staff member for the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. She is a 2011 recipient of the President’s Volunteer Service Award and a 2011 recipient of a United State Marine Corps Certificate of Commendation for her volunteer efforts as a family readiness officer for the 1st Marine Logistics Group, Combat Logistics Regimen 17 in Camp Pendleton, California.

She graduated from Widener University Commonwealth Law School earning her juris doctorate degree and graduated with distinction from George Mason University earning her bachelor’s degree in sociology with a minor in American government. She was inducted into the Stanford E. Lacy Workers’ Compensation Inn of Court in 2025 and is a South Carolina LeadSC program graduate.

Please direct any inquiries to Chairman T. Scott Beck at 803-737-5698

By Brenza Irving Jones
District Judge
Louisiana Workforce Commission, Workers’ Compensation
Baton Rouge, LA

My mother, Mary J. Irving, was a basketball coach of 33 years. Her teams won five (5) state championships and many other distinguished victories. She was the first African American female to be inducted into the Mississippi Coaches Hall of Fame. She was the first person to introduce me to the concept of pivoting. On the basketball court, pivoting is the action of stepping with one foot while keeping the other foot as a point of contact with the floor. Pivoting on the basketball court allows one to analyze options for the implementation of the greatest technique that will lead to the scoring of points and an ultimate victory. The pivot requires one to stop, analyze, adjust, and then, act.

During over thirty-two (32) years of service as a Workers’ Compensation District Judge, I have been presented with many occasions demanding a pivot. Adjustments and modifications are inevitable in a constantly changing legal and technological system. In my position, adaptation, while remaining centered with the ultimate goal of resolution, is essential.

When I was a newly appointed judge, I attended the National Judicial College. The information I received was invaluable and implemented. I still recall the ninety-three year old retired judge who advised the class to conference with attorneys on the morning of trial to ask the simple question of whether they had attempted to settle the case. I am often surprised to discover, in many cases, no attempt was made. Further, I am pleasantly surprised when the parties reach a settlement agreement in those cases following my imposition of “mediation” techniques. I used the knowledge gained at the college to “pivot” from judge to mediator, with resulting resolution.

Recent observations gleaned during my tenure on the bench led me to conclude, it is time to pivot again. Thus, in August 2025, I returned to the NAWCJ Judicial College. Following my attendance, I returned to the bench with a greater level of enthusiasm. The opportunity to glean from my colleagues from various parts of the country proved to be an invaluable experience. Panel discussions concerning artificial intelligence gave me a heightened alert about what to expect and what to avoid. Clearly, a pivot from the traditional research methods and writing style is mandated.

The presentations concerning generational shifts and their impact on our decision-making process confirmed a new trend. Discussions regarding technology in the courtroom and the impact of the ever-changing healthcare system were informative. On a personal level, I found confirmation of appropriate pivoting from the bench and endorsement of anticipated strategies projected for continued success.

Whether on the basketball court or in the courtroom, one must know when the occasion requires a pivot. On the basketball court adjustments may become necessary to score and to win. On the bench, we must respond to changing circumstances. We must maintain a just and timely resolution of disputes. We must uphold the greatest options and techniques for the administration of justice in a fair and equitable manner, pivoting, as necessary, within our “courts” of law.