The great trade-off in Workers' compensation: perceptions of injustice by those experiencing persistent pain

Abstract

Introduction Some claimants harbor perceptions of injustice about the way they have been treated. In particular, those with ongoing and disabling pain have been generally dissatisfied by the way they have been managed by the systems designed to offer them financial compensation.

Aim In this paper we aim to explore possible factors that may contribute to their dissatisfaction.

Method We review the historical development of the various systems in which monetary compensation was awarded for personal injury.

Findings In the latter years of the 19th century, a significant trade-off occurred in the German workers’ compensation systems. On the one hand, employers accepted the principle of no-fault insurance and agreed to provide injured workers with monetary compensation and medical treatment. On the other hand, employees agreed to relinquish the right to sue their employer for negligence. However, awards under this legal system did not include assessments for ongoing pain, humiliation, or loss of social status as were incorporated in previous systems.

Conclusion Although the Prussian and German approach provided a utilitarian model for similar systems around the world, its failure to include some long-established benefits of a moral nature may have contributed to the current perceptions of injustice expressed by many injured workers experiencing persistent pain.