Three years after injury, injured workers represented by attorneys have lower health scores than similar injured workers who aren’t represented. 

Joe Paduda

That’s the main takeaway from a rigorous study conducted by the estimable David Neumark and Bogdan Savych of the Workers Compensation Research Institute.

That’s despite the fact that represented workers’ medical costs are double those of non-represented workers’ medical payments, and indemnity payments are also higher for represented than non-represented workers.

The study, which was based on about 10,000 workers in 125 states and is available here at no cost to WCRI members and for a nominal fee for nonmembers, concludes:

Our prior study showed that attorneys led to higher indemnity payments per claimant, which — on its own — sounds like a better outcome for workers. However, the present study finds that workers with attorneys have lower recovery of physical health and functioning three years after injuries, compared with otherwise similar workers without an attorney … the costs of a worse recovery far outweigh any gains to workers from higher indemnity benefits, given the health consequences seem likely to have long-term persistence and lead to lower future earnings.

Before you ask, yes, the control group exhibited many of the same characteristics as the represented group, and controls for workplace, injury, worker and location were used.

What does this mean for you?

Sure, sometimes injured workers need an attorney to help them navigate the vagaries and weirdness of workers’ comp, but most would do better without that attorney “help.”

Joseph Paduda is the principal of Health Strategy Associates, a consulting firm focused on improving medical management programs in workers’ compensation. This column is republished with his permission from his Managed Care Matters blog.