Massachusetts’ highest court has largely upheld the Commissioner’s authority to reject proposed workers’ compensation insurance rates while sending two portions of a 2024 rate decision back for further explanation, leaving current statewide workers’ compensation rates unchanged.
In a decision issued July 6, 2026, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the Commissioner of Insurance properly exercised his authority to disapprove rate filings submitted by the Workers’ Compensation Rating and Inspection Bureau of Massachusetts (WCRIB). However, the Court concluded that the Commissioner failed to adequately explain how he arrived at a statewide average rate decrease of 14.6% in 2024 and also did not sufficiently explain one directive involving Class Code 9033.
For Massachusetts insurers, agencies, employers, and other participants in the workers’ compensation market, the immediate practical effect is that the current rates reflecting the 14.6% statewide average decrease remain in effect while the matter returns to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
Two Consecutive Rate Filings Led to the Appeal
The dispute arose from two successive workers’ compensation rate filings.
In December 2023, WCRIB filed for a 7.6% decrease in the statewide average workers’ compensation insurance rate, effective July 1, 2024. After conducting the statutory rate proceeding, the Commissioner rejected that filing, concluded the then-existing rates were excessive, and instead ordered a statewide average decrease of 14.6%.
The following year, WCRIB filed for a statewide average rate increase of 7.1% effective July 1, 2025. The Commissioner again rejected the filing and left the rates established by the 2024 order unchanged.
WCRIB appealed both decisions directly to the Supreme Judicial Court under G.L. c. 152, § 53A(10).
Court Affirms Commissioner’s Authority to Reject Proposed Rates
The Court rejected WCRIB’s principal argument that the Commissioner improperly imposed his own ratemaking methodology.
Instead, the SJC concluded that the Commissioner’s written decisions adequately explained why he rejected significant portions of WCRIB’s proposed methodology and that the administrative record reasonably supported those findings.
The Court also reaffirmed that, under the workers’ compensation ratemaking statute, the Commissioner may disapprove proposed rates that he determines are excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory, provided his decision is adequately supported and explained.
Commissioner Must Explain the 14.6% Rate Reduction
Although the Court upheld the Commissioner’s authority to reject the 2024 filing, it found one significant deficiency.
After concluding that the existing rates were excessive, the Commissioner ordered a 14.6% decrease, averaged statewide. The Court found that the decision contained no explanation showing how the Commissioner arrived at that specific figure.
The opinion states that while the Commissioner is not required to make findings on every disputed issue, his findings must indicate the overall basis for the decision and “permit effective appellate review.”
Because the Court could not determine how the Commissioner calculated the 14.6% decrease, it remanded that portion of the 2024 decision for further consideration and explanation.
The Court did not decide whether a 14.6% reduction was correct or incorrect. Rather, it concluded that the Commissioner must explain the reasoning supporting that percentage.
Court Upholds Loss Development Methodology Decision
The Court also rejected WCRIB’s challenge to the Commissioner’s treatment of loss development.
One disputed issue involved the amount of historical claims data used to estimate ultimate workers’ compensation losses. WCRIB continued using a two-year look-back period for one portion of its indemnity paid loss calculations, while the Commissioner concluded that five years of historical data produced a more reasonable result under the circumstances.
The Court noted that the COVID-19 pandemic created unusual loss experience during 2020 and concluded that the Commissioner adequately explained why a five-year historical period was appropriate despite WCRIB’s longstanding methodology.
Accordingly, the Court upheld that aspect of the Commissioner’s decisions.
Class Code 9033 Also Returns to the Commissioner
The Court also addressed the Commissioner’s treatment of Class Code 9033, which primarily applies to public housing authority employees.
In the 2024 decision, the Commissioner directed WCRIB to use statewide data from the Massachusetts affiliate of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO), a private entity, rather than countrywide insurance company data in future filings for that class code.
The SJC concluded that the Commissioner had not adequately explained why he required that methodological change or sufficiently addressed WCRIB’s objections to the use of the NAHRO data. The Court therefore remanded that portion of the decision for further explanation.
Again, the Court did not decide whether the Commissioner’s methodology or WCRIB’s methodology was correct. Instead, it held only that the Commissioner’s had insufficiently explained his reasoning to allow judicial review.
Existing Rates Remain in Effect
Although WCRIB obtained a remand on the unexplained 14.6% reduction and the Class Code 9033 directive, the Court otherwise upheld the Commissioner’s authority to reject the proposed rate filings.
The Court also noted that WCRIB did not challenge one independent basis for disapproving its filings—the Commissioner’s determination regarding the underwriting profit provision—which remained undisturbed.
As a result, the decision does not immediately alter workers’ compensation insurance rates in Massachusetts. Instead, the matter returns to the Commissioner to provide additional explanation for the portions of the 2024 decision identified by the Court while the current rates remain in effect.
