Based on a review of more than 10,000 cases, the state agency charged with settling workers’ compensation disputes in Massachusetts consistently failed to do so within required statutory timeframes, according to new audit findings.
In response to the newly released audit findings, the Department of Industrial Accidents (DIA) attributed delays in cases to efforts to obtain accurate information and said delays are viewed by the agency, insurers and attorneys as an “acceptable best practice.”
The DIA, which has a $20 million annual budget, completed conferences between the worker’s attorney, insurance company, and judge in 89 days, on average. The mandated timeframe is 28 days, according to Auditor Suzanne Bump’s office. Hearings and case decisions were 159 and 134 days late, according to the audit, which reviewed 10,695 claims over a two-year period ending June 30, 2019.
In total, 68 percent of cases processed by the DIA were not completed in the mandated timeframes for initial case conference, hearing, and decision, the audit found.
“The statute sets timeframes not just to hold judges accountable for the timely resolution of these disputes, but also to give attorneys, insurers, medical examiners, and all other participants a heightened sensitivity to the needs of injured workers and their employers, because delays penalize them both,” said Bump, who served as labor secretary during Gov. Deval Patrick’s administration.
Bump’s office described the DIA, which falls under the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development, as “the state’s court system for workers’ compensation cases.” The audit also concluded that the agency failed to report attorney fees and insurer penalties to the Workers’ Compensation Advisory Council, which monitors the workers’ compensation system, and lacked proper IT security controls over its case management system.
The DIA, within Bump’s audit, said it would “continue its efforts to meet the 28-day timeframe specified in the statute,” but added a caveat.
“Because each case presents its own unique facts and considerations, the 28-day timeframe may not be consistently achievable,” the agency said. “Cases delayed beyond the 28-day timeframe are a direct result of the processes completed by external parties to ensure that complete and accurate information is available and presented in each case. Accordingly, for almost three decades, the extended timeframe between Conciliation and Conference has been viewed by insurance carriers, attorneys, and the DIA as an acceptable best practice.”
