The news recently brought reports of Congress conducting a hearing to "explore hurdles related to federal workers' comp programs." The clear focus was the federal program for federal employees.
Nonetheless, one of the committee members used the meeting to level broad and vague allegations about state workers' compensation: “Many workers’ compensation systems have slowly been eroded.” This representative concluded that:
“Over the past several decades, states have reduced benefits, narrowed eligibility and added administrative hurdles. Too often, injured workers receive less support precisely when they need it most.”
It is always interesting when broad allegations are made without even a scintilla of specificity or a single example. In this, there is neither novelty nor news, but there is an opportunity for a headline. The unstated points are likewise worthy of consideration.
The cost of workplace injury must be borne by someone. See Someone Has to Pay (May 2016). To some extent, a state legislature may be able to define what an injured worker receives. See Harris v. Lineage Logistics, CL-2025-1033, 2026 WL 2207386 (Ala. Ct. App., July 31, 2026). But it may face hurdles in that process. See Bouayad v. Normandy Insurance, SC2023-1576 (July 9, 2026).
Nonetheless, there are opportunities for judicial review of the manner in which workers' compensation alters the rights and responsibilities of workers and employers. See It is Padgett Time (June 2015); A Kentucky Constitutional Decision (April 2017); Tennessee and New Mexico Provisions Deemed Unconstitutional (June 2015); Another Constitutional Decision (April 2016); Pennsylvania High Court Magnifies Protz (June 2017); AIS Regulator Forum (May 2017).
In the end, there is a fair volume of legislative compromise in every element of workers' compensation. That was true when the original state statutes were drafted and has persisted over decades of individual state amendments and adjustments. This is all superimposed over the aggregation of various federal regulation efforts in the employer/employee relationship over the last century.
There are various perspectives. Some see benefits and processes that accreted to the benefit of the employer or employee. Each of those likely also involved some co-erosion of the rights of the other. There is an overall balance accomplished by each jurisdictional system (state, territory, etc.). There are often micro-balance considerations in any particular amendment or adjustment.
It is therefore difficult, in the abstract, to conclude anything broadly about "workers’ compensation systems," in the abstract, and without significant research and analysis. In this regard, there will always be value in study. But broad platitudes and accusations are unfortunate.
There is undoubtedly a different balance today than existed when any state adopted workers' compensation. There is a raft of federal legislation with alphabet soup obscurity or familiarity: NLRA (1935), SSA (1935), FLSA (1938), ADEA (1967), ERISA (1974), OSHA (1970), FMLA (1993), ADA (1990), and more. The employer/employee relationship has undoubtedly changed in the last 100 years.
Some might argue that the familiar provisions of the Equal Pay Act (1963), Title VII (1964), and Title IX (1972) belong on that same list, despite being deprived of catchy acronym titles. Interestingly, some would argue that in none of these was there any quid pro quo. Some see these as burdens on American business for which they enjoy no corresponding benefit, unlike the trade-off in workers' compensation.
All that said, this post takes a while to digest, ponder, and even contradict or refute if one wishes. The national headline of "workers' compensation hurdles," in the midst of an unrelated federal issue, is easier. Criticism is easier. But, in the end, workers' compensation provides care and more daily in all 50 states, several territories, and more.
If it is to be criticized, and perhaps that is appropriate, it should be by someone who understands and acknowledges that the quid pro quo is complex and not so amenable to sound bites and simplifications. Anyone seeing diminution in benefits in recent decades might do well to examine whether an injured worker in 2026 is better off than they would have been under the original applicable workers' compensation statute.
