It took two and a half years before anyone asked Becky Curtis what she wanted to do for work.
Not what her injury was. Not what her restrictions were. What she wanted to do.
That single fact is why I’m writing this.
I introduced the benefits of a biopsychosocial rather than biomedical treatment model in 2010, before most people in work comp had heard the term. In fact, most early responses to my message were horror that an approach taking in the whole person would open Pandora’s box of psych as a compensable claim. Fortunately, that has changed quite a bit since then, and I can convincingly say it is now a widely accepted approach.
Part of that whole-person approach includes empathetic communication in challenging times. Not because it sounds good or makes for a nice conference presentation. It is definitely not because I believe workers’ compensation professionals should become amateur therapists. Instead, I have talked and written about it because I believe it changes outcomes that benefit the two primary stakeholders in a claim – the injured worker and their employer.
While at the Workers’ Compensation Institute conference on August 25, I specifically chose to attend a session that matched my long-held beliefs. The title was “Empathy Isn’t Soft – It’s Strategic! How Empathy Curbs Litigation and Total Claim Cost.” It was a panel discussion that included Dr. Geralyn Datz, Debra Livingston, and Becky Curtis. All three are personal friends and mentors of mine. They have each made profound contributions as WorkCompCollege faculty. During many discussions at meals and conferences (and, in the case of Becky, a hike at Big Sky), we have traveled many of the same intellectual roads around whole-person recovery. They have refined my opinions and broadened my perspective.
Hearing them put the pieces together – from psychological science, a proactive approach to return-to-work, and Becky’s lived experience as an injured worker – was powerful.
They made the point that empathy isn’t simply the compassionate thing to do. As their title stated, it is also the strategic thing to do.
Dr. Datz made a distinction early in the session that is worth remembering: “Sympathy is about you. Empathy is about them.” The focus of sympathy is on the situation and your reaction to it, while the focus of empathy is on the person’s emotions and perspective. Sympathy creates distance while empathy creates connection.
- Sympathy says, I’m so sorry you’re going through this.
- Empathy says, I understand why this is difficult for you. Let’s talk about what happens next.
That distinction matters enormously in workers’ compensation.
Empathy does not mean agreeing with everything an injured worker says. It does not mean approving every requested treatment. It does not mean accepting blame, ignoring policy, or abandoning professional boundaries. It does not turn a claims adjuster or case manager into a wet blanket.
You can say no with empathy. You can disagree with empathy. You can deliver an unfavorable decision with empathy.
Dr. Datz called it the “zero-dollar intervention,” a reframing from the usual transactional communication style.
For example, an alternative to “That isn’t my department” is a more empathetic “Let me help you identify who can address that and what happens next.”
Instead of saying “There’s nothing I can do,” try “Here’s what I can do from my side, and here’s what still has to happen.”
Same facts. Different words. Potentially very different outcome.
Imagine an injured worker who repeatedly calls the adjuster.
Any news? Has this been approved? When is my appointment? Why hasn’t anyone called me?
Those are all legitimate questions, especially from someone who is encountering workers’ compensation for the first time. However, from the claims professional’s perspective, that person can quickly become “high maintenance.” I’ve described it in the past as “this is 30 minutes I’m never going to get back … (sigh).”
All three panelists suggested another interpretation. The injured worker may be afraid.
Their life has been turned upside down. They don’t know whether they’ll recover their ability to do things (including their job). They may not know whether they’ll even have a job and what that means to their ability to pay the bills. They’ve lost daily contact with coworkers with whom they spent most of their waking hours during the week. They now feel rejected. They do not understand most of the words that their doctor or physical therapist is telling them, which means they don’t do the necessary follow-up that aids their recovery between visits. All that anxiety impacts their relationships at home, further increasing their stress that decreases the quality of their sleep (which further sharpens their emotional edge).
So they call. Again. And again. And again. On the other end of the phone, it can be eye roll time for the claims adjuster or case manager.
I understand that sometimes there isn’t an answer to give them. But perhaps the answer is simply: “You probably won’t hear from me for about three weeks because we’re waiting for X. If something changes before then, I’ll let you know. I’m here to help you.”
Transparent predictability reduces uncertainty. On the flip side, increased uncertainty feeds fear, and fear negatively influences behavior and attitude and resilience.
What I just described is the whole-person mindset in action. The claim is not just about the shoulder, knee or lower back. It’s also about the person. Their whole person.
Becky’s story makes this real. Twenty-one years ago, she suffered a devastating work-related automobile accident. She broke her neck. She eventually developed chronic pain. Constant, burning, pain. She began searching for the thing that would fix it.
A surgery.
A pill.
A procedure.
An injection.
Anything.
Eventually she entered a functional restoration program and began understanding pain differently. She learned that pain is as much an experience as a sensation and that there were things she could do to influence that experience. That journey ultimately gave her a new professional purpose: helping others with chronic pain.
But she shared one detail during the session that I had not heard before during all our past conversations.
We talk incessantly about “return-to-work,” yet apparently nobody thought about asking Becky what work meant to her.
That is precisely why whole-person recovery matters. We need to understand the person’s physical condition. But we also need to understand their fears, expectations, family circumstances, relationships, identity, purpose and goals. We need to give them a reason to invest their time and effort in their own recovery by giving them hope.
Ultimately, we’re not treating a diagnosis. We’re helping a human being recover their life. Our goal is to return them, as quickly as possible, as close as possible, to the function they had prior to the occupational injury or disease.
That high-minded goal might not be enough for “left-brained people” thinking but I have a business to run.
Good. Let’s talk about business.
All three connected empathy with perceived injustice, litigation, claim duration, communication, and recovery. When injured workers believe nobody is listening, that they are being treated unfairly, or that nobody is advocating for them, the desire to find someone who will advocate for them becomes understandable. That someone may be an attorney, which can create a significant increase in cost and duration. They all discussed research connecting negative emotions – anger, resentment, sadness, fear – with physiological healing (or lack thereof).
So … better communication → greater trust → less perceived injustice → less conflict → potentially less litigation → better engagement → better recovery → lower total claim cost.
Empathy isn’t sitting outside the claims process. Empathy is part of the claims process.
Debra provided a fascinating data point from her own organization. After implementing multiway communication with the injured workers they serve, they saw an 80% response rate to the initial text messages sent to injured workers. Her interpretation struck me: injured workers are starved for communication. She clearly understood that technology can give us more opportunities to be human.
But there is an uncomfortable truth.
We can’t demand empathy from people while putting them in environments that make empathy nearly impossible.
Debra raised the issue of adjuster workload. When someone is managing 170, 200 or more claims, spending meaningful time with an injured worker becomes a luxury.
Dr. Datz explained that focus narrows when people burn out. Attention and compassion naturally become more limited as a form of self-protection. That is a biological fact. It is not a character flaw in the adjuster, but an organizational issue that fosters shallowness.
If we want professionals to listen, communicate, build trust and understand the whole person, we must create systems that give them the capacity to do those things.
Becky beautifully summarized the economic argument: “More time on the front end, but maybe less time on the back end.”
Dr. Datz made it clear that empathy can be taught.
Communication can be practiced. Listening can be practiced. Difficult conversations can be practiced. Recognizing fear underneath anger can be learned. Maintaining boundaries while demonstrating compassion can be learned.
That’s why we intentionally weave empathy, communication, biopsychosocial thinking and whole-person recovery throughout our curriculum at WorkCompCollege. These aren’t standalone “soft skills” to be checked off before returning to the important technical stuff. They are the important stuff.
The insights from Dr. Datz, Debra, and Becky reminded me of why I maintain passion about this subject, sixteen years since my epiphany.
I appreciated each of them helping the audience realize that empathy isn’t about being nice.
It’s about seeing the person behind the claim number. Listening before reacting. Creating predictability where there is uncertainty. Preserving dignity while maintaining appropriate boundaries. Understanding that how we communicate can influence what happens next.
Do it because it’s compassionate.
Do it because it’s strategic.
Do it because it produces better outcomes.
In workers’ compensation, those don’t have to be three different things. Do it, whatever your reason.
