Statistical Analysis

          The number of petitions filed with the Workers’ Compensation Court declined from 8374 in 2006 to 8050 in 2007.  This reflects a decline of almost four percent (4%).  It is interesting to note that there had been an increase in filings in 2006 for the first time in years.  

The decline in the number of filings remains an extremely positive trend. When it is remembered that the ideal workers’ compensation system would not require any judicial intervention, the decline in the number of cases filed demonstrates that the underlying system continues to function well.  Further research also serves to explain the steady decline in filings with the Workers’ Compensation Court.  When the Annual Report of the Department of Labor and Training is evaluated, it becomes clear that the decrease in filings is a beneficial function of the decline in the number of reported injuries.  Since 2000, the number of reported injuries has steadily decreased from a high of 34,421 in 2000 to the current figure of 25,544. (Source: 2007 Division of Workers’ Compensation Annual Report to the Workers’ Compensation Advisory Council on the Workers’ Compensation System, March 12, 2008).  It is certainly the hope that the decline in injuries is attributed to the fact that Rhode Islanders are working more safely, and as a  result of these safe work practices, the number of reported injuries has therefore declined. 

Additional analysis of the data maintained by the Court demonstrates that the decrease in filings is reflected in those areas where the Court traditionally sees the most activity. Original Petitions for Workers’ Compensation Benefits declined from 2654 petitions in 2006 to 2586 cases in the most recent calendar year.  Employee’s Petitions to Review also decreased from 1857 in 2006 to 1763 in 2007.  Petitions to Enforce Prior Agreements or Decrees declined in a similar fashion from 976 in 2006 to 838 in 2007.   

The number of Petitions to Enforce in 2006 had represented a significant increase over the five prior years and had caused some concern about the reason for the spike. Fortunately, this year’s decrease in this category is quite significant (14%) and signals a return to the downward trend.  This category of filing may be the best barometer to gauge the performance of those managing compensation claims in Rhode Island. Under the present law, the employer or insurer must continue to pay a weekly workers’ compensation benefit to an injured employee until either the Court enters an order discontinuing benefits or the parties agree to a suspension. The opportunity to unilaterally discontinue the employee’s weekly benefit is extremely rare.  For this reason, the Legislature has traditionally granted the employee the opportunity to file a petition to enforce the payment of benefits.  This should be a rare filing however, and an increase in this category was an immediate cause for concern.  The resumption of a downward slide is indeed welcome news. 

The number of Miscellaneous Petitions again increased in the past year.  This increase continues a five year trend which has seen this type of filing almost triple.   While this is a “catch-all” category, it also reflects the several new types of cases over which the Court has been given jurisdiction by the General Assembly.  Thus, petitions involving disputes in insurance coverage and petitions to assess penalties for the failure to maintain workers’ compensation insurance are now heard by the Court.  These petitions do not necessarily follow the traditional litigation model and, therefore, are more cumbersome and time consuming.  The increase probably reflects the fact that the parties are more comfortable with this type of litigation and, therefore, more willing to file with the Court.  Similarly, the Court has crafted rules of procedure to deal with this class of cases and is handling them expeditiously.  Nevertheless, these claims, particularly the disputes regarding workers’ compensation insurance, are complicated and cannot be compared to the traditional compensation claim.  The parties increased reliance upon the Court to address these issues is a testament to the success we have enjoyed in litigating these matters efficiently and equitably.   

In 2007, the Workers’ Compensation Court continued a remarkable trend in the resolution of cases.  It again concluded more cases than it received and did so more efficiently than it has ever done in its history.  At every level of the proceedings, the time frames for the resolution of claims have consistently declined.  The successes which this Court has achieved are due to the dedication and diligence of the judges and staff who have labored to provide all parties an efficient forum in which to resolve their differences. 

As has been the case in recent years, the Court again closed more cases than it received.  In 2007, there were 8050 cases filed with the Court, and the Court closed 8276 files.  While the success in this category is significant, the evaluation of several other measurement criteria better demonstrate the importance of our achievements this year.

For the second year in a row, the Court succeeded in closing eighty-two percent (82%) of the cases closed at the pretrial level within sixty days of the date on which they were filed.  This statistic is remarkable for several reasons.  Initially, it demonstrates that the Workers’ Compensation Court is reaching all cases assigned to it in a timely manner.  The General Laws specifically require that the Court conduct a pretrial conference within twenty-one (21) days of the date on which the case is filed (R.I.G.L. §28-35-20).  The purpose was obvious.  The drafters of the compensation law knew that if the Court could reach cases in a timely manner and render a pretrial order addressing the relief sought in the petition on at least a preliminary basis, the number of filings would begin to recede.  If neither side could gain an advantage simply by having the matter move through the litigation system, filing cases for strategic purposes would cease, and the number of cases filed would begin to decline.           

The creators of this procedural system could not have envisioned the second part of this scenario.  As noted earlier, any party who is dissatisfied with the results of the pretrial conference has the right to appeal the matter and to obtain a full trial de novo (R.I.G.L. §28-35-20(d)).  This provision allows a litigant to obtain a meaningful due process hearing if desired.  It also allows the parties to accept the decision following the pretrial conference and pay benefits accordingly.  Remarkably, seventy-two percent (72%) of the cases are resolved at the pretrial level. Since only one quarter of the cases proceed beyond the pretrial level, the holdings in the majority of pretrial orders are accepted and become the law of the case. The success of the pretrial conference allows the litigants and the Court to properly focus upon those cases which require a full trial on the merits.              

In order to further screen litigation and to facilitate the management of cases requiring a full evidentiary hearing, the Workers’ Compensation Court initiated a special calendar.  Rule 2.4 of the Workers’ Compensation Court Rules of Practice established the procedure for the Court to conduct initial hearings.  The purpose of the initial hearing is twofold.  Initially, the proceeding allows the Court and the litigants to reduce the issues in dispute to a minimum.  Thereafter, if the entire matter cannot be resolved, the Court can use this hearing to establish trial and briefing schedules. When this rule was initially promulgated, the Court had hoped that it would allow for a more orderly and reliable trial schedule and would allow both the bench and the bar to manage their calendars to maximize efficiency and reduce the need to continue cases due to calendar conflicts.  In addition, the Court can ensure that precious space on a trial judge’s daily calendar is properly used and that trial dates are not squandered when a case needs to be continued.  The initial hearing has been such a success that the pilot program was incorporated into the Court’s Rules of Practice.           

The most demonstrative evidence that this calendar has been successful is the continued growth in the number of cases closed at all levels of the proceedings and the time frames within which matters are successfully concluded.  In 2005, sixty-five percent (65%) of the cases filed with the Court were closed within sixty days of the date of filing.  In 2006, this figure increased to sixty-nine percent (69%).  In the most recent calendar year, the Court was able to successfully close a remarkable seventy-one percent (71%) of its cases within sixty days of the date on which they were filed.  It is interesting to note that the number of cases which were closed at the pretrial level within sixty days has remained constant.  (Eighty-two percent (82%) of all pretrials were closed within sixty days in both of the last two years.)  Thus, the drastic increase was in the number of cases which were appealed beyond the pretrial level and were resolved at the trial level. 

            It is also essential to remember that the cases handled by the Court are increasingly more complex and do not lend themselves to speedy resolution.  The expansion of the Court’s jurisdiction and the complicated liability and rehabilitation cases which have become common in the Court make it difficult to conclude a case on a single hearing date. Despite these additional problems which the judges have encountered, the Court has been able to become more productive through a combination of simple diligence and effective case management practices.