Our Workers’ Comp Community: Law, Data, and Human Judgment in 2035

Thought Leadership

Apr 22

BY JOHN MOLINAR

In my last post, I wrote about something that makes workers’ compensation different from many other areas of law. Over time, what begins as a practice area quietly becomes a community.

We see each other in hearing rooms, conference hallways, and increasingly on Zoom screens. We debate statutes, compare medical opinions, and exchange stories about cases that linger in memory long after the files are closed. The conversations are professional, but they are also personal because the work affects real lives. That sense of community matters even more as the system around us begins to change.

For decades, the structure of workers’ compensation has remained remarkably steady.

An injury occurs.

Medical care follows.

Income benefits are calculated.

Disputes arise.

Human judgment resolves them.

The case names change. The coffee gets more expensive. But the framework itself has endured.

What is beginning to change is everything around it. The future of workers’ compensation is not arriving with flashing lights. It’s quietly rearranging the furniture while we’re catching up on yesterday’s email.

The real question is not whether the system will evolve. It’s whether we will evolve with it.

The Nature of Work Is Changing

The modern workplace looks very different from the one our statutes were written to govern.

Employees now work from kitchen tables, spare bedrooms, and airport lounges. Meetings unfold across multiple time zones. Some workers report to supervisors they have never met in person. Others are managed by software that tracks productivity with a level of dedication most middle managers could only dream of.

In earlier decades, many disputes centered on a straightforward question: did the injury occur on the employer’s premises? Today, the premises may exist wherever a laptop, a folding chair, and a Wi-Fi signal happen to meet. These shifts raise difficult legal questions.

If an employee working remotely across state lines develops a cumulative injury, where did the injury occur? If wearable devices monitor posture, movement, and fatigue, who owns that data? The employee? The employer? The company operating the device platform?

The workplace has expanded dramatically. The provisions governing workplace injuries have not. That tension will shape the next decade of workers’ compensation law.

Causation Is Becoming More Complex

Earlier in my career, many disputes involved discrete events.

A fall from a ladder.

A lifting incident.

A machine malfunction that hasn’t been serviced since MapQuest directions were printed before every trip.

Today, disputes increasingly involve cumulative trauma, repetitive stress injuries, psychological strain, and medical conditions layered over preexisting pathology.

At the same time, technology is giving us new tools to analyze these cases.

Recovery outcomes can be compared across large data sets. Biomechanical modeling can reconstruct force and movement. Longitudinal health data can reveal patterns that once remained invisible. None of this eliminates disputes. It changes how they are framed.

Instead of relying primarily on retrospective testimony and competing medical opinions, hearings may increasingly involve recovery analytics, wearable data, and predictive modeling. The central question remains the same: what caused the injury? But the evidence used to answer that question is becoming more sophisticated.

Medicine Is Entering a Predictive Era

Medical science itself is becoming increasingly data driven.

Artificial intelligence now assists radiologists in interpreting imaging studies. Outcome modeling can predict recovery trajectories for certain injuries. Treatment protocols can be evaluated against large patient populations.

These tools have the potential to improve consistency and reduce delays in medical decision-making. But they also raise new questions.

If predictive modeling suggests that a particular surgery has a low probability of improving long-term outcomes, how should that influence authorization decisions? If recovery data deviates from expected norms, does that invite closer scrutiny of the claim?

Predictive medicine can offer valuable insight. But probability is not testimony. An algorithm does not raise its right hand before offering an opinion. It cannot be cross-examined. It does not explain why it changed its conclusion halfway through an analysis.

Precision is valuable. Judgment remains essential.

Intelligent Claims Systems Are Emerging

Technology is also reshaping the claims process itself.

Modern claims platforms can identify potential compensability issues, estimate exposure, and detect irregular billing patterns in seconds. Data analytics can help adjusters identify trends and anticipate disputes earlier in the life of a claim.

These capabilities offer clear advantages. They can improve efficiency. They can reduce administrative delays. They can help professionals manage increasingly complex claim portfolios. But they also create responsibility.

If a system recommends denial of a claim, a human professional must still evaluate that recommendation and sign the PLN-1. If historical data contains bias, applying that data across thousands of claims can quietly amplify inequities. And if predictive modeling suggests a claim is likely to become contentious, professionals must be careful not to treat prediction as inevitability.

Technology should serve as an advisor in the claims process. It should never become the quiet authority in the room that no one feels comfortable questioning.

The Enduring Role of Human Judgment

Workers’ compensation has always been a system built around people.

An injured employee seeking stability.
An employer seeking continuity of operations.
An adjuster balancing financial exposure with fairness.
Lawyers advocating within statutory frameworks that occasionally feel as though they were drafted in the middle of the night.

Technology can assist these professionals. It can accelerate analysis, organize information, and improve consistency. But it cannot replace judgment.

Human judgment requires context. It requires ethical reasoning. It requires the ability to evaluate facts that do not fit neatly within a predictive model.

The professionals who will shape the future of workers’ compensation will be those who understand both the legal issues and the technological tools increasingly influencing the system. They will be comfortable working with data while remaining grounded in principles of fairness and accountability.

Work will continue to evolve. Medicine will continue to advance. Data will become more powerful and more accessible. Yet at the center of the system, the essential task remains the same.

Someone must open the file and examine the facts carefully.

Someone must ask difficult questions.

Someone must make a decision that affects real human lives.

That responsibility cannot be automated. The future of workers’ compensation will not be written by algorithms alone. It will be written by professionals who know how to use those algorithms wisely.

Because in the end, even in 2035, someone will still have to decide what is fair. And fairness has never been a software feature.

Pull up a chair.

Let’s get to work.

AUTHOR

John Molinar is a Board Certified Workers’ Compensation attorney and industry leader, offering practical insight shaped by decades of experience across the Texas system.

→ Follow John on LinkedIn
→ Follow Hermes Law on LinkedIn