The New Jersey workers compensation system has changed significantly in the years since the COVID-19 pandemic. Virtual court appearances, handling of claims remotely, and telemedicine examinations have become increasingly common in the handling and litigation of workers compensation claims. These developments have created meaningful efficiencies for employers, carriers, third-party administrators, petitioners, and petitioners’ attorneys. However, from a defense perspective, efficiency must be balanced against effective claim investigation, medical review, credibility assessment, and litigation strategy. The central question is not whether technology belongs in the workers compensation system; it already does. The question is whether employers, carriers, and counsel can use it to gain efficiency without compromising the quality of the defense.
Virtual hearings and trials have become an important component of New Jersey workers compensation practice. Routine matters can often be handled without requiring attorneys, adjusters, employers, or claimants to appear physically at the courthouse. For the defense, this can translate into reduced travel costs, fewer scheduling conflicts, and greater access to counsel and claims professionals. For routine matters, those efficiencies are difficult to dispute. A brief appearance should not necessarily require an attorney or claims representative to spend hours traveling to and from court.
The defense concerns become greater, however, when credibility, testimony, or complex factual issues are involved. In-person proceedings allow counsel and the judge to observe witnesses directly and can make it easier to manage exhibits, testimony, and other evidence. Virtual proceedings can introduce distractions, connectivity problems, off-camera participants, and other issues that may affect the presentation of evidence. A more effective approach may be to use a strategic hybrid model. Virtual proceedings can be an effective tool for routine litigation, while in-person appearances should remain an important option when the defense requires meaningful credibility assessment or a more involved presentation of evidence.
The traditional workers compensation claims often involved a centralized workplace where supervisors, human resources personnel, witnesses, and employees are physically present together. That model has increasingly given way to hybrid and remote workplaces. For claims professionals, this decentralization can complicate the earliest stage of a claim, when the defense often has its best opportunity to preserve evidence and identify inconsistencies. When an employee works remotely, there may be no coworker who witnessed the accident, the supervisor may be located in another state, or the employer representative may never have met the claimant in person. The risk manager may be evaluating the claim remotely and not know the details of a specific work location. As a result, early investigation becomes even more important.
Employers and carriers should be encouraged to obtain detailed written accident reports, witness statements, photographs, job descriptions, employment records, electronic communications, and other relevant documentation as soon as possible. Even prior to litigation, defense counsel can play an important role in identifying what information is necessary to evaluate compensability, causation, and exposure. Technology has made information more accessible, but it should still be documented through proper procedures. Technology has not eliminated the need to obtain necessary information by asking the right questions.
Another effective way to document the claim and immediately direct medical care is by using telemedicine. With the acceptance of telemedicine, initial injury details, direction of medical care, routine follow-up appointments, medication management, and treatment-progress discussions can provide a practical and convenient alternative to an office visit. It can reduce transportation issues, save on medical costs, and allow treatment to continue without unnecessary disruption. Telemedicine also allows injured workers who relocate to continue treatment with providers familiar with the workers compensation process.
From a defense perspective, however, the limitations should be recognized. Workers compensation claims frequently turn on objective findings, causation, functional restrictions, and the extent of permanent impairment. Those determinations may require a physical examination that cannot be replicated through a computer screen. A telemedicine appointment may be entirely appropriate for one stage of treatment and inappropriate for another. For example, a discussion regarding continued medication may lend itself to telemedicine, while an orthopedic examination involving range of motion, strength, gait, or other objective findings may require an in-person evaluation. For employers and carriers, the goal should not be to minimize medical visits simply because technology makes that possible. The goal should be medically appropriate treatment that also gives employers and carriers enough information to assess the claim and its exposure. The more important question is whether increased reliance on technology has affected the quality of workers compensation defense. The answer should be yes, but not necessarily for the worse. Technology allows defense counsel to communicate with clients and adjusters more quickly, review files electronically, attend routine proceedings remotely, exchange documents immediately, resolve cases expeditiously, and collaborate with claims professionals regardless of location. Those efficiencies can allow counsel to spend more time on substantive case evaluation rather than administrative tasks.
Technology can also create a risk of making defense work too transactional. Effective workers compensation defense is not simply appearing at a virtual hearing or negotiating a settlement through email. It requires understanding the employer's operations, evaluating the medical evidence, investigating causation, identifying prior injuries and potential apportionment issues, assessing credibility, analyzing exposure, and developing a strategy appropriate to the individual claim. In a reorganized environment, that requires more intentional communication, not less. For employers and carriers, the value of defense counsel increasingly lies not merely in courtroom advocacy, but in the ability to identify potential exposure early, provide practical guidance to claims professionals, and use technology without allowing it to replace professional judgment. The future of New Jersey workers compensation will undoubtedly remain technology driven. Virtual proceedings, electronic claims management, remote work, and telemedicine are now part of the system. The defense bar should embrace the efficiencies these tools provide while remaining mindful of their limitations. Ultimately, technology should make workers compensation defense more efficient, more informed, and more strategic, not simply more remote.
About the author:
Ruby Delarosa is a partner with Weber Gallagher. ruby.delarosa@wglaw.com