In 1990, the General Assembly encountered a completely dysfunctional workers’ compensation program and began the daunting task of crafting a system which would meet the needs of all the competing stakeholders.  In order to do so, the Legislature had to create a process which would allow the parties to resolve their differences in the most efficient manner possible while preserving the litigants’ right to a full due process hearing if necessary.  It is a testament to their collective wisdom that our current system has thrived.  

Our Workers’ Compensation Act envisions a three tier dispute resolution process created to give the competing parties the greatest opportunity to amicably resolve their differences, short of full litigation, while ensuring that those cases which require a trial can proceed fairly and efficiently.  To reconcile these conflicting demands, a system was created to facilitate alternate dispute resolution while rapidly identifying those cases which demand a full evidentiary hearing and to create procedures to efficiently proceed to trial where necessary. The current system recognizes that, as a no fault system, the vast majority of claims are opened, paid and concluded without judicial involvement.  These cases are addressed through a series of mutual agreements which facilitate the payment of weekly compensation benefits to deserving employees. 

If a claim must be filed with the Workers’ Compensation Court,  the statute implements an alternate dispute resolution process to rapidly bring the litigants together at a pretrial conference to mediate the dispute and, if mediation is unsuccessful, to enter a pretrial order addressing the relief sought in the petition.  This order is effective at the time of entry and will remain in effect until a decree or subsequent order is entered.  This pretrial process was the centerpiece of the 1990 Workers’ Compensation Reform and has proven essential in eliminating needless litigation.  It has long been recognized that delay and backlog are the biggest enemies of any workers’ compensation system.  An injured employee who is unable to work relies upon the weekly workers’ compensation benefit to survive during his or her period of disability.  If the benefit delivery is unnecessarily interrupted or unreasonably delayed, the employee will suffer immediate harm from which he or she may never recover.  Similarly, if an employer or insurer is required to continue payments to an employee who is no longer disabled it will be harmed by this unnecessary delay.  In either situation, the parties will seek to “cut their losses” and settle claims rather than incur additional weekly liability.  In Merchants Mutual Insurance Co. v. Newport Hospital, 108 R.I. 86, 272 A.2d 329 (1971) Justice Thomas Kelleher commented upon the harmful effect any unwarranted delay had upon the parties in a workers’ compensation case.  He noted:

  It was common knowledge that a frivolous appeal by an employee could result in a substantial lump settlement or continued compensation long after the incapacity had ceased. The procedures under the former version of the act contributed to delay in the length of time required to terminate a compensation case, thereby adding another cost factor to the employer in the form of higher insurance premiums. The injured worker was confronted with an even more acute

problem . . . He did not receive his compensation promptly. At a time when he was unable to work and usually in need of medical attention with no income to support himself and his family, he was faced with what appeared to be a seemingly endless and costly litigation. As a result, either claims were abandoned or the injured worker was harassed into accepting an inadequate lump-sum settlement. Id. at 91, 272 A.2d at 331. 

The current dispute resolution system was created to eliminate that delay and has been closely monitored to ensure that no new backlogs are created.

While the creation of the pretrial process effectively obviated the backlog and the delays which had long plagued the system, the next challenge for the Court was to ensure that those cases which proceeded to trial were resolved efficiently.  The approach had to be distinct from the one used in the pretrial process because the proceedings were more formalized and the parties had a right to a full evidentiary hearing.  The Court, therefore, devised procedures to accommodate a full evidentiary hearing, including settlement conferences and pretrial discovery, while addressing the mandate for a prompt resolution of the dispute. 

Additionally, the Workers’ Compensation Court is charged with maintaining a complete intermediate appellate procedure for compensation cases heard and decided at the trial level.  The appeal is based upon the record of testimony and evidence introduced at trial.  Any party dissatisfied with the trial judge’s decision following a full trial on the merits has the right to appeal the matter to the Court’s Appellate Division.  This panel consists of three judges who did not hear the case at the trial level.  The parties prepare reasons of appeal and legal memoranda and argue the merits before the appellate panel.  Following briefing and argument, the assigned judges conduct a full independent review of the record to determine whether there is evidence to support the factual determination made by the trial judge and whether the correct rule of law was applied.  At the conclusion of this independent review, the Appellate Division may sustain the decision of the trial judge, overrule the decision and enter a new decree with new findings of fact, or remand the matter to the trial judge with instructions on how to proceed.  While this procedure is, by its very nature, time consuming, and demands reflection and deliberation, the Court never loses sight of its charge to reach and decide these cases in the most efficient manner possible.  In many situations, the legal issue raised in the appeal may affect numerous pending cases and all parties await the outcome.  Even if the issue raised is discrete, the Court understands that its decision will have a profound impact on the litigants, and it labors to hear and decide appellate cases in the most efficient manner possible.

At every level of the proceedings, the Court is responsible to craft rules of procedure to balance the rights of the parties to a full, meaningful hearing at a meaningful time.  We have periodically revised our rules to address new types of litigation assigned to the Court, substantive amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act or simply to improve the efficiency of the tribunal.  In addition, the Court has taken affirmative steps to encourage alternate dispute resolution in the judicial setting and has revised its procedures to formalize such efforts.  The members of the Court strive to continue our present efficiency and to seek ideas for continued improvement in our case management.

As the Chief Judge of the Court, I can state that the results for 2007 are truly remarkable.  As the ensuing discussion will reveal, the Court improved its efficiency in every reviewable category.  The annual review of our statistics and the analysis of our results provide the opportunity to reflect upon the legislative intent of the 1990-1992 reform legislation and to consider our efforts to meet those lofty goals.   I am proud of the tireless efforts of the judges and staff of this Court.   I believe the detailed results demonstrate the fruit of those efforts.  They also establish the standard we must commit ourselves to exceed.  Since additional statistical improvement will further increase the efficiency of the Court and the entire Workers’ Compensation System, we welcome this ambitious challenge.