Introduction

The role of a claims manager is not just pivotal but indispensable in ensuring the smooth operation of any claims organization. These professionals oversee complex claims processes, manage teams, and make critical decisions impacting organizational performance and customer satisfaction. However, without the necessary training and development, claims managers can struggle to handle these challenges, leading to inefficiencies, increased costs, and reduced customer satisfaction. By investing in a comprehensive training program, organizations can significantly enhance claims managers’ capabilities, drive positive outcomes, and gain a competitive edge in a complex industry landscape.

The Evolving Role of the Claims Manager

The claims manager’s role has not just expanded, but evolved as the claims management field adapts to new regulations, technologies, and customer expectations. This role demands not just specialized knowledge, but agility, and a strategic approach to problem-solving. Modern claims managers must not just possess diverse skills, expertise, strong leadership abilities, and a deep understanding of the regulatory landscape.

Key Responsibilities

A claims manager’s responsibilities often include:

• Claims Handling: Overseeing the investigation, evaluation, and resolution of claims.
• Team Management: Leading and mentoring claims adjusters and other team members.
• Financial Management: Monitoring and controlling claims expenses to meet organizational financial goals.
• Regulatory Compliance: Ensuring adherence to relevant laws and regulations to avoid legal complications.
• Customer Service: Providing excellent service to internal and external stakeholders is essential for client satisfaction and retention.

The scope and complexity of these responsibilities underscore the need for robust training to prepare claims managers to effectively meet these demands.

Essential Skills for Effective Claims Management

To excel in their roles, claims managers must develop various skills. These can be grouped into Technical Skills, Soft Skills, and Analytical Skills:

Technical Skills

• Claims Processing Knowledge: Understanding claims workflow, procedures, and best practices.
• Medical Terminology and Coding: Familiarity with medical language and coding practices to facilitate claim evaluations.
• Legal and Regulatory Expertise: Knowledge of relevant laws, regulations, and industry standards.

 Soft Skills

• Effective Communication: Clear and empathetic communication with stakeholders.
• Strong Leadership and Interpersonal Skills: Ability to inspire, guide, and support team members.
• Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Abilities: Competence in analyzing issues and making sound judgments.
• Negotiation and Conflict Resolution: Skill in mediating disputes and reaching agreements.
• Empathy and Compassion: Understanding the emotional aspects of claims, especially in sensitive cases.

 Analytical Skills

• Data Analysis and Trend Identification: Ability to assess data trends for informed decision-making and risk assessment.
• Technology Proficiency: Familiarity with claims management software, digital transformation tools, and emerging technologies that enhance workflow and reporting.

Developing a Comprehensive Training Program

A well-structured training program can significantly enhance the skills and knowledge of claims managers. Key elements of a successful program include:

Needs Assessment

• Individual and Organizational Analysis: Identify the specific training needs of individual claims managers and the organization.
• Continuous Assessment: Adapt training as new technologies emerge, regulations change, and organizational priorities shift.
• Consider Key Factors: When designing training needs, consider experience level, role responsibilities, and emerging industry trends.

Curriculum Design

Develop a comprehensive curriculum that covers a wide range of topics, including:

• Claims Handling Best Practices: Techniques for effective investigation, documentation, and resolution of claims.
• Regulatory Updates and Compliance: In-depth coverage of legal updates and compliance requirements.
• Effective Communication and Negotiation: Training in communication skills and techniques to improve stakeholder interactions.
• Leadership and Team Management: Strategies for team building, mentorship, and managing performance.
• Risk Management and Fraud Prevention: Tools and techniques for identifying and mitigating risks.
• Technology and Digital Tools: Training on claims software, data analytics tools, and other digital resources that enhance productivity.

Customization is crucial. Tailor the curriculum to the participants’ specific needs and learning styles, ensuring the content stays current with industry best practices, legal standards, and technological advancements.

Delivery Methods

A blend of delivery methods caters to different learning preferences and enhances training outcomes:

• Classroom Training: Provides a structured learning environment with opportunities for interaction and discussion, ideal for foundational knowledge and networking.
• Online Learning Offers flexibility and accessibility. It allows learners to access training materials at their own pace, particularly useful for regulatory updates and policy changes.
• Mentoring and Coaching: This option provides personalized guidance and support from experienced professionals, allowing claims managers to apply their learned skills in real-world scenarios.
• On-the-Job Training: Allows for hands-on experience and practical application of learned skills, reinforcing knowledge through experience.

Evaluation and Feedback

A continuous improvement model is not just important, but essential to adapt the training program to emerging needs and ensure ongoing effectiveness. This commitment to continuous improvement is a testament to the dedication and professionalism of claims managers.

• Performance Evaluation: The effectiveness of the training program is assessed through pre- and post-training assessments, surveys, and performance evaluations.
• Continuous Improvement: Use feedback to identify areas for improvement and adjust the training program to keep it aligned with organizational goals and regulatory demands.

Additional Considerations

In addition to core training elements, consider the following strategies to support claims manager development:

• Succession Planning: Identify and develop high-potential claims managers to ensure a smooth transition as experienced professionals retire or move on. Leadership development programs can cultivate promising managers and prepare them for higher roles.
• Staying informed about industry trends and best practices is not just beneficial but crucial to continuously improve claims management processes, allowing claims managers to operate at the cutting edge.
• Technology and Innovation: Embrace technology to streamline workflows and enhance decision-making, focusing on tools like data analytics and automated claims processing systems.
• Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing: Encourage collective problem-solving and continuous learning while fostering a culture of collaboration and knowledge sharing among claims managers.

Implementing these strategies will cultivate a highly skilled, motivated, and forward-thinking claims manager workforce equipped to meet future challenges.

By investing in comprehensive training and development programs, organizations can empower their claims managers to achieve excellence. Well-trained claims managers can improve efficiency, reduce costs, and enhance customer satisfaction, ultimately contributing to the organization’s overall success. Comprehensive claims manager training does more than refine skills—it builds a foundation for sustainable, high-quality claims management that meets regulatory demands, drives financial performance, and enhances the customer experience. As the claims landscape grows more complex, a robust training program equips organizations with leaders who can navigate challenges with confidence and skill.

That is the central problem behind what workers comp staff need today. Many organizations still train for file movement, diary discipline, and statutory compliance, then wonder why claims escalate, injured workers disengage, supervisors get frustrated, and attorney involvement rises. The gap is rarely effort. More often, it is capability design. Workers’ compensation professionals need technical precision, but they also need the communication and recovery management skills that influence whether a claim stabilizes or deteriorates.

For carriers, TPAs, self-insured employers, and provider-facing teams, this is not a soft issue. It is an operational performance issue with direct implications for claim duration, indemnity spend, return-to-work outcomes, reserve adequacy, litigation frequency, and injured worker experience.

What workers comp staff need is more than rule knowledge

Most organizations begin with the obvious requirements: jurisdictional rules, compensability standards, benefit administration, medical management basics, documentation, and compliance expectations. Those are essential. Without them, claim handling becomes inconsistent and exposed.

But rule knowledge alone does not create high-performing claims teams. A staff member may know the deadline for a compensability decision and still communicate that decision poorly. A nurse case manager may understand treatment guidelines and still fail to build trust with an injured worker. A supervisor may know return-to-work policy and still send mixed signals that delay recovery.

This is where many training models break down. They treat technical knowledge as the whole job, when in practice it is only part of the job. Workers’ compensation is a regulated system, but it is also a human system. The claim outcome depends heavily on how information is delivered, how expectations are set, how barriers are identified, and whether the injured worker feels heard early enough to stay engaged.

The core capabilities that change claim outcomes

If the goal is measurable improvement, workers comp staff need a broader capability set that connects claim mechanics to real-world recovery. The strongest teams usually develop in five areas at once.

Technical competency

This remains the baseline. Staff need role-specific command of compensability, average weekly wage calculations, state-specific timelines, medical and indemnity workflows, reserving logic, settlement considerations, Medicare Secondary Payer implications where applicable, and documentation standards. They also need to understand how their own role fits into the full life cycle of a claim.

The nuance is that technical competency should be sequenced by role. New adjusters do not need the same depth as senior examiners. Employer representatives need a different emphasis than clinical staff. Broad but shallow training can create false confidence. Focused and progressive training tends to produce better consistency.

Communication that reduces friction

A surprising number of claim failures begin as communication failures. The injured worker does not understand the process. The employer does not know what documentation matters. The provider receives incomplete direction. The adjuster uses accurate but impersonal language that sounds dismissive.

Workers comp staff need structured communication training, not generic customer service advice. They need to know how to explain benefits clearly, how to discuss delays without escalating emotion, how to set realistic expectations, how to document difficult conversations, and how to recognize when confusion is becoming mistrust. This is especially important in the first days of a claim, when the tone is still being established.

There is a direct business case here. Clear communication often lowers avoidable attorney involvement, reduces repeat contacts, improves cooperation, and supports faster decision-making. It does not eliminate disputes in every claim, but it changes the probability curve.

Empathy as a professional skill

In workers’ compensation, empathy is often misunderstood. It does not mean agreeing with every demand or abandoning standards. It means recognizing the injured worker as a person experiencing disruption, uncertainty, and often fear, then responding in a way that preserves dignity while maintaining process integrity.

That distinction matters. Staff who are trained to use empathy appropriately can ask better questions, surface psychosocial barriers sooner, de-escalate tension, and create better engagement around treatment and return to work. Staff who are not trained in this area may sound efficient internally while being received externally as cold, scripted, or adversarial.

For organizations focused on claim cost, that is not a philosophical concern. Perception affects participation, and participation affects outcomes.

Recovery and return-to-work management

What workers comp staff need here is often more advanced than a checklist. Return to work is not simply a status update. It is a coordination function that requires knowledge of restrictions, employer capabilities, clinical progress, worker readiness, and potential non-medical barriers.

Teams need to understand how to support work status conversations, how to frame modified duty constructively, and how to recognize when a delayed return to work is being driven by factors outside the medical record. Sometimes the issue is transportation. Sometimes it is family pressure. Sometimes it is a damaged relationship with the supervisor. Sometimes it is fear of reinjury.

A purely transactional approach misses these factors. A recovery-centered approach addresses them earlier.

Judgment and escalation discipline

Not every claim needs the same intervention. That is why workers comp staff need sound judgment, not just process adherence. They must know when to escalate, when to bring in clinical resources, when to engage legal review, when to revisit reserves, and when a claim is showing signs of psychosocial complexity.

This is where experience traditionally fills the gap, but relying only on experience is slow and uneven. Formal training can shorten the learning curve by teaching pattern recognition and decision frameworks. It will not remove every gray area because workers’ compensation always has gray areas, but it helps teams respond more consistently.

What workers comp staff need from employers and leadership

Training cannot carry the full burden if the operating environment undermines it.

Staff need realistic caseload expectations. Even strong adjusters struggle when volume prevents meaningful contact or timely follow-up. They need defined workflows, role clarity, and supervisory coaching that goes beyond file closure metrics. If the only message from leadership is speed, employees will optimize for speed. If leadership also measures communication quality, recovery progress, litigation reduction, and return-to-work performance, behavior changes.

They also need training that is continuous rather than episodic. A one-time onboarding event is not enough for a field shaped by regulatory variation, changing medical issues, compliance demands, and evolving claimant expectations. Mature organizations treat education as infrastructure.

This is one reason specialized workforce development matters. In a field this technical and consequential, generic professional development rarely reaches the operational detail required to improve claim results.

The training model matters as much as the content

Organizations sometimes ask whether they need more training hours. The better question is whether they have the right training architecture.

Workers’ compensation staff perform better when education is role-specific, progressive, measurable, and tied to outcomes. New hires need foundational pathways. Experienced staff need advanced problem-solving and jurisdictional depth. Leaders need coaching tools and performance frameworks. Enterprise teams often need a common language so adjusters, nurses, managers, and employer stakeholders are not operating from conflicting assumptions.

This is also where many organizations see the value of integrating human-centered competencies into formal claims education. WorkCompCollege has built its training philosophy around that exact premise: technical excellence and whole person recovery are not competing priorities. They are mutually reinforcing.

What the best-prepared teams do differently

High-performing teams do not simply know more facts. They apply a different standard of practice.

They make early contact purposeful. They explain the process in plain language. They set expectations before confusion hardens into distrust. They document with clarity. They coordinate around recovery instead of reacting only to delay. They understand that empathy can be operational, not sentimental. And they recognize that the injured worker’s experience is not separate from claim performance. It is part of claim performance.

There are trade-offs, of course. More thoughtful communication takes time. Better training requires investment. Lower caseloads may not be immediately feasible in every environment. But the alternative is usually more expensive: inconsistent handling, preventable escalation, prolonged disability, strained employer relationships, and higher total cost of risk.

That is why the question is not whether workers comp staff need technical training or soft skills. They need both, delivered with enough specificity to influence real decisions on real claims.

The organizations that treat this as a strategic workforce issue, rather than a basic onboarding task, are usually the ones that create stronger recovery outcomes for injured workers and more reliable financial outcomes for the business.

If your team is still being trained to process claims rather than manage recovery, there is probably more performance sitting on the table than the current model can reach.

For carriers, TPAs, self-insured employers, and provider teams, the challenge is rarely a lack of effort. It is fragmentation. One department owns first report timeliness, another manages benefit administration, another addresses nurse case management, and someone else handles training. The result is a patchwork system that may pass a superficial audit but still produce inconsistent outcomes. A useful roadmap brings those moving parts into a single performance structure.

What a workers comp compliance roadmap should actually cover

Many organizations define compliance too narrowly. They focus on posting notices, filing required forms, and meeting statutory deadlines. Those elements matter, but they are only the baseline. A real compliance framework must also address decision quality, communication standards, documentation discipline, return-to-work coordination, vendor oversight, and role-based training.

That broader view matters because workers’ compensation is operationally interdependent. A late wage statement can affect benefit accuracy. A vague file note can weaken claim defensibility. A poorly handled first worker conversation can increase mistrust, attorney representation, and claim duration. Compliance failures do not always begin as legal failures. They often begin as process failures or skill failures.

This is why high-performing organizations treat compliance as a system rather than a checklist. The roadmap has to connect legal obligations with human behavior inside the claim life cycle.

Start with risk mapping, not policy binders

The first step is to map where noncompliance actually occurs. That means reviewing the claim journey from injury intake through closure and identifying where your organization is most vulnerable. In some operations, the problem is jurisdictional complexity. In others, it is inconsistent compensability investigation, delayed medical coordination, or weak supervisor reporting discipline.

This exercise should be concrete. Look at missed deadlines, penalty events, litigation trends, repeat audit findings, return-to-work delays, complaint patterns, and documentation defects. If you operate across multiple states, separate what is enterprise-wide from what is state-specific. A national program with strong general practices can still fail in state execution if local forms, notices, fee schedule rules, utilization review requirements, or reporting obligations are not built into workflows.

A binder full of policies may satisfy internal governance expectations, but it will not solve operational drift. Risk mapping gives leadership a practical starting point because it ties compliance work to measurable exposure.

Build around roles, not just departments

One of the most common reasons compliance programs underperform is that responsibility is assigned at the department level but not at the role level. Saying that claims handles notices or HR handles reporting is too broad. Effective roadmaps specify who does what, when, using which standard, and how performance is measured.

For example, the frontline supervisor may own immediate injury escalation. The claims professional may own statutory contact and compensability documentation. The nurse case manager may own clinical coordination and expectation-setting. The employer stakeholder may own modified duty identification. Compliance leaders should then define escalation points for exceptions, including denied claims, delayed investigations, catastrophic injuries, and Medicare-related issues.

Role clarity matters because workers’ compensation work is time-sensitive and cross-functional. When accountability is diffuse, deadlines slip and no one can diagnose why.

Training is a compliance control, not a side activity

Organizations often invest in rules but underinvest in capability. That is a costly mistake. A compliance program is only as strong as the judgment and execution of the people carrying it out.

Technical training should cover jurisdictional requirements, reporting timelines, compensability standards, documentation protocols, return-to-work obligations, and coordination rules that affect claim administration. But technical knowledge alone is not enough. Communication, empathy, and expectation-setting are also compliance-relevant competencies because they shape worker cooperation, treatment engagement, and dispute risk.

An adjuster who knows the statute but cannot explain the process clearly may still create avoidable friction. A nurse who coordinates care well clinically but fails to align expectations may still contribute to delay. A supervisor who reports injuries quickly but speaks carelessly to an injured worker may increase mistrust. These are not soft issues in the casual sense. They are operational variables with financial consequences.

That is where specialized education has a distinct advantage. WorkCompCollege has built its training model around the reality that whole person recovery and technical precision belong in the same professional standard, not in separate conversations.

Documentation standards make the roadmap real

If a compliance requirement cannot be evidenced, it is vulnerable. Documentation is what turns intention into defensible practice. Yet many files still contain incomplete notes, inconsistent rationale, unclear status updates, or vague descriptions of worker contact.

A strong roadmap defines what must be documented at each stage of the claim. That includes injury intake, jurisdiction confirmation, wage verification, compensability analysis, benefit decisions, medical coordination activity, return-to-work planning, and communication efforts. It should also establish quality standards. Timely notes are not enough if they fail to capture the reasoning behind a decision or the substance of a conversation.

There is a trade-off here. Overdocumentation can burden staff and create clutter that hides important facts. Underdocumentation weakens audit readiness and claim defensibility. The right standard is disciplined, relevant, and consistent documentation tied to operational purpose.

Audits should test outcomes, not just file presence

Many internal audits focus on whether a form exists in the file or whether a task was marked complete. Those checks have value, but they are not sufficient. A mature audit model asks whether the action was timely, accurate, appropriate to the jurisdiction, and effective in moving the claim toward lawful and productive resolution.

For example, did the claimant receive the required communication, and was it understandable? Was return-to-work discussed early, or only after absence became prolonged? Was a denial supported by documented facts and properly communicated? Was medical management aligned with both recovery goals and regulatory expectations?

This kind of audit requires more expertise, but it produces better control. It also surfaces training gaps that policy reviews alone tend to miss.

State variation changes everything

Any workers comp compliance roadmap that treats all jurisdictions as functionally identical will break under pressure. State variation affects reporting, forms, compensability standards, medical management rules, fee schedules, dispute procedures, and return-to-work practices. Even organizations with sophisticated national operations can struggle when local requirements are layered onto centralized workflows.

The solution is not to abandon standardization. It is to distinguish between enterprise standards and state-specific execution points. Enterprise standards may define service expectations, documentation quality, communication principles, escalation rules, and audit methods. State-specific modules then address what must change by jurisdiction.

This is especially important for onboarding. New team members often learn broad claims principles first and state distinctions later. That sequencing can work, but only if organizations actively close the gap before independent file ownership begins.

Compliance performance should be measured like claim performance

If compliance is framed as a support function, it will be treated as overhead. If it is framed as a claims performance driver, leadership will resource it differently. The better approach is to connect compliance metrics to operational and financial outcomes.

That means tracking more than penalties or audit scores. Measure timeliness of first report, accuracy of benefit setup, contact compliance, litigation rates, return-to-work intervals, documentation quality, denial defensibility, complaint trends, and rework volume. Then examine where breakdowns correlate with cost and duration.

Not every metric will improve on the same timeline. Some interventions, such as better notice handling, can produce quick gains. Others, such as communication training or cultural changes around empathy, may take longer to show full impact. That does not make them less valuable. It simply means the roadmap should separate leading indicators from lagging outcomes.

The strongest roadmaps account for the human side of claims

There is a persistent mistake in workers’ compensation operations: treating compliance as if law, process, and people can be managed separately. They cannot. Injured workers do not experience your program as a policy architecture. They experience it through conversations, delays, clarity, responsiveness, and respect.

That is why communication standards belong inside compliance strategy. When workers understand what is happening, what is expected, and what support is available, claims are easier to administer. When they feel ignored or confused, even a technically correct process can produce conflict. Human-centered claims handling is not a public relations layer added after compliance. It is part of what makes compliance function effectively.

A workable roadmap does not promise perfection. Multi-state complexity, staffing pressure, and evolving regulations mean there will always be judgment calls and edge cases. The goal is to build a disciplined operating model where legal requirements, role clarity, training, documentation, and recovery-focused communication reinforce one another. When that happens, compliance stops being a defensive exercise and starts acting like what it really is – a core capability that protects both claim outcomes and people.

Originally Published 4/6/26.

Those of you who have seen me present on stage know that I always find a way to incorporate my horses into the mix.  In my mind, the horsemanship lessons are directly parallel to what we as leaders, managers, and teammates encounter daily.  My hope is this approach helps the message stick.

Today is not a good day as I’m preparing to say goodbye to my biggest mentor, C.S. Gaybar Latigo aka Lattie.  Lattie is the one who taught me many of the lessons I share with the industry when I speak. 

If you’ve ever owned a horse, you know your veterinarian becomes part of your inner circle. Our partners at Austin Equine Hospital have been exactly that.  They are my trusted advisors, steady voices, and friends. They’ve answered every anxious call from this self-proclaimed “helicopter horse mom” with patience and care.  There were days I’d see their arms waving out the window at our boys in the pasture as they drove by on the highway and I occasionally receive random texts from them just to check on us.

Austin Equine taught me one of the hardest yet important lessons of all: if you truly listen, your horse will tell you when it’s time.

Yesterday on Easter morning in 2026, Lattie told me.

And as his “alpha,” my responsibility is to listen even when it breaks my heart.

Through communication with my “speed dial” friends we found a way to mask his pain enough that he can have one more day with us, and it’s a beautiful day.  The sun is shining following the heavenly rain we were gifted over the weekend.  The air is fresh and the temperature is crisp.  What more could my Lattie boy ask?

The hard part is making sure he’s aware of how thankful I am to be his mom.  How grateful I am for the lesson he taught, and how best to memorialize his purpose through continually sharing the gifts he gave with audiences across our industry and maybe beyond that scope. 

That big lovable goofball, the gentle, sensitive giant that would spook at the site of a shadow from a bird flying above on a sunny day.  That masterful supervisor always in the middle of any project in his pasture and the boy who stepped into a dominant alpha role once Harry Trotter joined the herd. 

Saying goodbye hurts when you love another so hard, but it’s wrong to skirt the beauty of that relationship for the fear of pain.  I’m also very cognizant that the pain I’m feeling at this moment is nothing compared to what I’ll face tomorrow, but I’ll muddle through it respecting the hurt as a reflection of our bond.

Today we share favorite treats, a couple of beers, and tons of hugs, kisses, and love.  Tomorrow my sweet boy, you and Muddy will return to your playful battles free of pain in wide open fields. 

I promise to continue sharing your lessons and legacy with others.

Originally Published 11/4/25.

Wow, it’s been six months since my last update on my continued failure at retirement! Spoiler alert: time doesn’t slow down just because you hit that milestone. I’ll let you decide if I truly qualify as “retired.”

As I write this update, exactly one year ago today, I was on a plane to Hawaii with family and my dearest friends to celebrate my retirement. I can still picture the ocean waves lapping up to the pool of the house we rented. Our group gathered on the big porch each evening quenching our thirst, laughing and reflecting on the day’s adventures. If I could just transport myself there at the end of each day to watch the sunset over the ocean and reminisce, it would be the perfect way to end my “retired” days back here in Austin.

Fast-forward to now, and I’m still joyfully busy with the incredible team at WorkCompCollege.com. My passion for claim advocacy in workers’ comp continues to grow as we turn vision into reality. The ability to promptly offer industry solutions without barriers excites and motivates me as I learn the new skill of business development. Since my last post, we’ve:

• Launched WC Docwise (education for healthcare practitioners and their staff)
• Released two modules on AI in workers’ compensation (AIWC and AIMWC)to create more time for human-to-human connections within the recovery space of an injury. I earned the AIMWC certification and find the information beneficial to a busy claims team.
• Built workersCOMPliance.com, a state-specific workers’ comp quick reference and comparison tools for all 50 states + DC
• Launched the Workers’ Comp Mental Injury Claims Specialist (WCMICS) certification program to relay best practices when it comes to these challenging claims.

Beyond that, I’ve stayed deeply involved with Kids’ Chance of Texas, helping fund scholarships for 32 amazing students. We recently wrapped up two big fundraisers a Sundance Head concert during the Texas DWC conference and our annual golf tournament. We grossed over $182,000 from both events.  Texas is big and the support is necessary to fund our continuously growing list of students in need.  Huge thanks to everyone who sponsored, volunteered, and showed up to support the cause!

And, oh yes, there’s also a new man in my life! His name is Harry Trotter.  He’s tall (at least to me), dark, and a little on the plump side… but he’s working on that.  We spend time together every day, and our bond grows stronger with every moment in each other’s presence.

That’s right, I finally found a new horse! Thanks to Gracie Moreland with Rising M Horsemanship, Harry and I are building trust, communication, and confidence one lesson at a time. Don’t worry, Randy will ALWAYS be the love of my life. He fully supports my “other relationship” and even laughed at the title of this post. The Steger household is happy, healthy, and full of love (and hay).

My earlier posts may have left you a little curious, so I thought I’d reveal a bit of what I have planned.  I’m channeling my horse world into the workplace exploring how working with horses mirrors working with teams.  Both require patience, communication, respect, and trust. I’ve even started offering presentations to employers and leaders using real stories, videos, and lessons from the barn to help strengthen people skills and build success in the workplace.

The best part? Every session is unique because just like with horses (and humans), I’m continuously learning too.

So, here’s to another year of “retirement” filled with purpose, laughter, and new adventures.

#RetireeDropout #WorkersComp #Leadership #ClaimAdvocacy #KidsChance #HorseLife #WorkCompCollege

Originally Published 4/23/25.

I have to say, returning to work again after retirement feels different. Maybe it’s the four-month breather I gave myself, or maybe it’s the simple truth that this time, I’m working because I want to, not because I must.

That probably sounds a little harsh, so let me back up. I truly loved my time working at the University of Texas System. It felt safe, meaningful, and deeply connected, like family. I was proud of the work we did and the purpose behind it.

But this new chapter isn’t about climbing ladders or checking boxes. It’s about giving back. I’ve spent thirty years in workers’ compensation and management, learning, growing, making mistakes, and finding my way. Now, I want to bundle all of that up and share it. My hope is to help shape the workers’ compensation industry into what I believe it can be, to inspire the next generation to bring their brilliance and build on the strong foundation we’ve already laid.

That’s what drew me to WorkCompCollege.com. The work we’re doing here speaks to something deep inside me. It’s meaningful. It’s mission-driven toward compassion in the workers’ compensation space. And it’s a perfect fit for why I stepped back into the workforce in the first place.

To be honest, when I started, I felt those old familiar patterns creeping back in, the 8 to 5 routine, the guilt for stepping away from my computer for too long. I even had one of those weekends where I quietly wondered if I’d made a mistake. But then, Sunday night came, and I felt excited. That feeling, that little spark, was all the reassurance I needed. This is right. And I’m having fun.

My work was not to be full-time, but I’ve found myself giving more than I initially planned. And it feels good. Maybe it’s because I chose this path. Maybe it’s because the goals we’re working toward align so closely with my own beliefs. Whatever the reason, I’m grateful and will eventually allow myself grace toward the freedom I have.

One promise I made to myself, though, was to protect time for what matters most, my husband Randy, our family, and of course, Lattie (my four-legged, 1000lb therapist). Randy and I love our evenings on the back porch, watching the sun go down as Bell, our dog, plays nearby and Lattie grazes peacefully in the pasture. I check in with my mom most evenings, and Sundays are for spending time together laughing and playing games, while Randy cooks something delicious for us.

Lattie and I have even started taking lessons with a trainer. We’re learning so much, and I think I can safely say we’re both enjoying the journey. I’ve also been keeping an eye out for another horse, because I think Lattie could use a buddy. Hopefully soon, I’ll be able to make introductions.

And yes, my inner overachiever hasn’t gone anywhere. I’m still nurturing my future project, and since my last blog, those plans have only grown. The vision is big, and it’s going to take time, but putting the pieces together has been such a joy mixed with, I can’t lie, a smidge of trepidation.

WHAT HAVE I DONE?  I found purpose.  I found balance.  From the rising excitement as retirement approached, to the sudden, soul-shaking stillness that followed the very next day, to the deep dive into figuring out who Melissa Steger really is, it’s been a journey. A real one. There have been some highs and lows along the way, but standing here now, I can honestly say I’m happy. I’m content with where I’ve landed. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming to have found some perfect, magical balance (does that even exist?). But what retirement did give me was the breathing room I didn’t know I needed. Space to pause, reflect, and really understand what matters most to me and to my family. And that moment. That clarity. It was a gift.

Originally Published 3/19/25.

Yep, that’s me! I retired in September 2024, and less than six months later, I was back at work. Whoops?

Like many, I had long imagined stepping away from the daily grind, the stress, the deadlines, and that little voice in my head always asking, Am I doing enough? I was fortunate to have a career I loved; one I had set my sights on early. Leading the workers’ compensation program for The University of Texas System was a dream come true, and I’m incredibly grateful. But I was also really looking forward to a new chapter, a chapter with a much slower pace.

I had talked about retirement for several years, so as my last day approached, I had a few opportunities available to me. But I was determined to take a real break. My plan was simple: the rest of 2024 would be dedicated to my husband, family, friends, and hobbies.  No work, no commitments, just time to enjoy life.

And for a little while, I did just that. Retirement was peaceful, relaxing, and filled with open-ended days for the first time in ages. And you know what? I really enjoyed it, but as January 2025 approached that arbitrary timeline I had set for myself turned into a challenge—one that demanded resolution.

So, I took a step back and asked myself: What do I truly love? What excites me? Where can I still make a difference?

The answer came quickly. I love teaching. I love sharing experiences and lessons learned through mentorship and public speaking. I love giving back to the industry that shaped my career. And most importantly, I love being a part of something that makes a difference.

That’s what led me back to WorkCompCollege.com. I was already involved as a trustee, a dean for the School of Humanity, and a faculty member, but I wanted to do more. Their mission speaks to me. Injecting a humanitarian approach into the workers’ compensation system? It’s such a simple concept, yet so often overlooked. WorkCompCollege.com promotes the idea that everyone in the system, yes, including the injured employee, should work together to promote recovering from the injury.  No unnecessary obstacles. No unnecessary adversity. Just integrity and collaboration. It’s work that matters, and that gets me fired up.

Oh, and because I never seem to do just one thing at a time… I have another project in the works! It’s still under wraps, but I promise it’ll be worth the wait. Stay tuned!

And in the meantime, keep an eye on WorkCompCollege.com because there’s a lot happening.  Reach out to me if you, too, would like to participate in the positive metamorphosis in the workers’ compensation space.

For claims leaders, the appeal is straightforward. New examiners need to ramp faster. Experienced adjusters need support as regulations, medical complexity, and claim expectations evolve. Supervisors need a clearer view of where skill gaps actually exist. And organizations need more than course completions. They need better contact strategies, fewer avoidable delays, more consistent documentation, lower litigation rates, and stronger return-to-work outcomes.

What AI powered claims learning actually means

In the workers’ compensation context, AI powered claims learning is not simply e-learning with a chatbot attached. It refers to training systems that use data, pattern recognition, adaptive delivery, and performance feedback to improve how claims professionals learn and apply judgment.

That can include role-specific learning paths based on experience level, simulations that adjust based on the learner’s choices, coaching prompts tied to claim scenarios, and assessments that identify where technical knowledge is weak versus where communication skills are the real issue. In more mature environments, it can also involve analyzing claims handling trends to shape future training priorities.

This distinction matters. A static training catalog can distribute information. AI-supported learning can identify what a professional is missing, where errors are likely to occur, and how to reinforce better habits before those gaps become file leakage, worker frustration, or attorney involvement.

Why the old training model falls short

Most workers’ compensation organizations still rely on a familiar mix of onboarding sessions, procedural documentation, compliance modules, and supervisory review. Those components matter, but they often do not solve the central problem: knowing a rule is not the same as applying it well under pressure.

A claim can be technically compliant and still poorly handled. An injured worker may receive the correct form and still feel ignored. A compensability investigation may be timely on paper and still be conducted in a way that escalates distrust. This is where many training models underperform. They teach process but not professional judgment. They cover statutes but not conversation quality. They test recall but not decision execution.

AI powered claims learning has value because it can narrow that gap. If a learner repeatedly struggles with setting expectations, documenting psychosocial barriers, recognizing recovery delays, or identifying when a communication style may increase friction, the system can surface that pattern early. Traditional training often misses this until the claim deteriorates.

The strongest use case is consistency

Workers’ compensation organizations do not just need smart individuals. They need dependable claims behavior across teams, offices, and books of business. Variability is expensive. It affects reserve adequacy, cycle time, worker satisfaction, provider coordination, and litigation risk.

The strongest case for AI powered claims learning is consistency without reducing claims handling to a script. A well-designed learning environment can expose professionals to repeated scenarios, measure decision quality over time, and reinforce standards in a way that one-time classroom instruction cannot.

That does not mean every adjuster should respond identically. It means they should demonstrate the same core competencies: timely action, sound investigation, clear documentation, accurate jurisdictional awareness, effective expectation-setting, and respectful communication with injured workers and employers. AI can help organizations train toward that operational standard while still leaving room for professional discretion.

Why human-centered skills belong in the model

Some organizations hear “AI” and immediately think about speed, automation, and cost control. Those are legitimate business priorities, but they only tell part of the story in workers’ compensation. Claims outcomes are shaped by human interaction. Miscommunication increases anxiety. Anxiety can fuel disengagement, treatment resistance, complaints, and attorney involvement. Those consequences are financial, but they begin as interpersonal failures.

That is why claims learning should not be limited to technical instruction. The more advanced use of AI in education is to strengthen soft-skill performance in a measurable way. Communication, empathy, active listening, and expectation-setting are not secondary traits. In workers’ compensation, they are operational capabilities.

An adaptive learning system can present difficult conversations, assess response quality, and coach learners on tone, wording, timing, and clarity. It can help a claims professional understand not only what to say, but how that message may be received by an injured worker who is in pain, uncertain about wages, and worried about job security. That is not abstract culture language. It is claim management discipline.

Where AI powered claims learning helps most

The best results usually come from targeted applications, not broad promises. Onboarding is one clear example. New hires often receive large volumes of information quickly, but retention varies and supervisors have limited time to personalize development. AI can adjust pace, repeat difficult concepts, and identify where a learner needs focused support.

It also helps in role progression. A claims assistant moving into examiner responsibilities, or an adjuster taking on more complex lost-time files, needs more than generic training. They need scenario-based learning that matches the actual judgment demands of the role.

Another high-value use case is remediation. If audit findings show recurring issues in three-point contact, reserve rationale, recovery planning, or state-specific compliance execution, AI-supported learning can deliver corrective training in a more precise way than assigning the same module to everyone.

Enterprise leaders should also pay attention to leadership development. Supervisors are often expected to coach file quality, communication standards, and team performance with uneven preparation. AI-informed learning can help standardize what good coaching looks like and where team capability is drifting.

The trade-offs leaders should evaluate

This is not a magic fix. AI powered claims learning is only as good as the training philosophy behind it. If the content is shallow, if the scenarios do not reflect real workers’ compensation complexity, or if the organization treats learning as a compliance box, the results will be disappointing.

There is also a legitimate governance issue. Claims organizations handle sensitive information, so any AI-related learning environment must be designed with privacy, security, and compliance discipline. Leaders should ask how data is used, what is being analyzed, and whether the training environment supports appropriate controls.

Another trade-off is over-standardization. If AI is used to force simplistic answers to nuanced claims situations, it can weaken professional judgment rather than strengthen it. Workers’ compensation is full of gray areas – compensability questions, return-to-work barriers, provider dynamics, psychosocial influences, and jurisdictional differences. Good learning systems teach discernment. Poor ones reward pattern mimicry.

That is why organizations should measure success carefully. Faster course completion is not enough. Better metrics include reduced variability in file handling, improved quality assurance scores, stronger injured worker communication, fewer avoidable escalations, and better return-to-work performance over time.

How to evaluate an AI powered claims learning strategy

A useful starting question is simple: what business problem are you trying to solve? If the answer is vague, the implementation will likely be vague too. Some organizations need faster onboarding. Others need stronger technical accuracy, lower litigation, or better injured worker engagement. The learning design should follow the operational objective.

Next, examine whether the training reflects actual claims work. Workers’ compensation education should be role-specific, jurisdiction-aware, and connected to real claim decisions. It should also include the human side of claims handling, because technical competence alone does not produce whole-person recovery outcomes.

Then look at feedback loops. The real promise of AI in learning is not content delivery. It is the ability to identify patterns, personalize reinforcement, and connect learning activity to claims performance indicators. If the system cannot help leaders understand where capability is improving or eroding, it is not solving the management problem.

For this reason, specialized industry education matters. Workers’ compensation is not a generic insurance workflow. It has legal complexity, medical nuance, employer relationships, return-to-work demands, and emotionally charged claimant interactions. A specialized training model, such as the kind advanced by WorkCompCollege, is better positioned to align AI-supported learning with both technical excellence and human-centered outcomes.

What this changes for the profession

The larger shift is not technological. It is professional. AI powered claims learning raises the standard for how claims expertise is built, measured, and sustained. It challenges the idea that experience alone is enough and replaces informal skill development with a more disciplined model.

That should be welcomed. Workers’ compensation professionals carry responsibilities that affect financial results, employee recovery, employer trust, and system credibility. They deserve training that reflects that level of responsibility.

The organizations that benefit most will be the ones that use AI to strengthen judgment, not bypass it. They will invest in learning that connects compliance, communication, clinical awareness, and return-to-work thinking into one coherent claims practice. And they will recognize that better outcomes usually begin long before a file reaches crisis. They begin with how people are taught to think, respond, and lead.

In my previous article on the Spectacle of Racing, I wrote about the beauty, precision, and sheer intensity of motorsports—how everything builds toward a single defining moment. What I didn’t explore then is what happens when that moment doesn’t go your way.

And I mean, really doesn’t go your way!

Because in racing, just as in leadership, many moments don’t.

Few examples capture this better than David Malukas’ heartbreaking finish at the 110th Indianapolis 500.

Malukus didn’t just lose.  This was his second year with a second-place finish.  And this loss?  It was a loss by 0.0233 seconds, the closest finish in Indy 500 history. In Indy history!

With eight laps to go, a caution erased what had been a hard-earned gap. Suddenly, everything came down to a one-lap shootout. It was executed nearly flawlessly:

• A decisive pass on Lap 199 to take the lead
• Full composure on the restart under extreme pressure
• A drive at what was described as “150%”

And yet, it wasn’t enough.

Coming down the final straightaway, the aerodynamic draft did what it always does. In racing terms, everything was done right.  And, it still ended in a loss.

That’s the kind of loss that cuts deeper than failure born from mistakes.  It’s the kind that tests who you are as a person and as a leader.

John Maxwell talks about “failing forward”—the idea that failure isn’t the opposite of success, but a necessary step toward it. But here’s the reality we don’t talk about enough: Failure doesn’t feel like growth in the moment.  It feels like loss.

You could see it in Malukas after the race.  Physically exhausted, emotionally spent, crying under his helmet.  He wasn’t analyzing growth opportunities. He was grieving something that felt like it belonged to him and his team.

And if you’ve led long enough, you know that feeling:

• The deal you worked for months to close… gone
• The employee you believed in… doesn’t work out
• The strategy you executed well… still misses

You can do everything right and still lose. That’s the part of leadership most people aren’t prepared for.

At ReEmployAbility, we’ve lived this.

We had a long-standing client—over 10 years. We grew together. We navigated organizational changes on both sides. There was trust, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to doing the right thing. We championed for each other, and we always had each other’s back.

And then something shifted.

Their team began asking for more customization, more control, and less of our involvement in a program we had built and designed. Over time, we learned that elements of our approach were being shared externally.  Ultimately helping create a broader process that could be used across multiple service providers, including our competitors.

The relationship changed. It became strained, more transactional, and harder to manage. Trust eroded—even within the boundaries of a contract.

We were faced with a hard decision.

When the RFP came, we chose not to respond. Not because we couldn’t compete.  Because we no longer trusted how our information, our thinking, or our investment would be used.

It was a loss.

And just like in racing, there’s a hard truth in how it happened.

We had created something strong.  Something worth following. But in doing that, we also created an advantage for others. The very thing that made us successful became something others could leverage.

When you lose as a leader, you don’t just lose for yourself. You lose for your team, your company, your partners, your clients. That’s what gives it weight. That’s what makes it personal.

Losses ripple. Leaders carry that.

There’s also an important truth in how this kind of loss happens. When you’re leading, you create exposure.

In racing, you become vulnerable. You punch a hole in the air, and everyone behind you benefits from it. The very act of being in front creates exposure. Leadership is no different.

• When you’re out front, expectations rise
• When you’re winning, people study you and some may even want to take you down
• When you lead, pressure intensifies

Success doesn’t remove risk. It amplifies it.

That’s why failing forward isn’t automatic. It sounds good in theory.  Learn from it, grow from it, and use it as fuel. But in practice, there’s a choice you make after every loss.

You can fail backward: “We should have…” “I blew it…”“That was our chance…”

And if you stay there too long, it erodes confidence, clarity, and ultimately your effectiveness as a leader.

Or you can fail forward.

That’s the turning point. Not pretending it didn’t hurt. Not rushing to a lesson. But choosing to do something with it.

Failing forward requires discipline:

• Owning reality without tearing yourself down
• Pulling the lesson without rewriting the truth
• Converting emotion into forward movement

That’s the work. Because there are a few things leaders have to get right after a loss:

You have to acknowledge it. If it hurts, it mattered. Don’t minimize it or brush past it.

You have to separate effort from outcome. Sometimes the performance is exactly what it needed to be, even if the result isn’t there. If you don’t make that distinction, you’ll start reinforcing the wrong behaviors.

You have to understand the system you’re operating in. External forces such as timing, competition, and context matter. Not every loss is a personal failure.

And you have to decide what to do with the emotion. Because emotion will show up whether you want it to or not. The question is whether it becomes weight that slows you down or fuel that pushes you forward.

Then you recommit.

That’s the part that defines leadership.  Not the win. The response to the loss.

Because leadership isn’t built on highlight moments. It’s built in the narrow gaps, the near misses, the “almost’s”, the moments that didn’t go your way.

The deals that almost closed (or you chose to let go of)  The goals that were within reach.  The opportunities that slipped in the final stretch.

Those are the moments that shape how you lead next.

The leaders who grow aren’t the ones who avoid loss. They’re the ones who refuse to let it define them.

Because in the end, leadership, just like racing, isn’t about one moment. It’s about what you do after it.

You’re always one lap away from your next opportunity.

For claims leaders, the operational question is straightforward. If trust changes behavior, then trust must be built intentionally, measured consistently, and trained as a professional competency. The organizations that perform best tend to treat communication, empathy, and expectation-setting as part of claim strategy, not as optional personality traits.

Why trust matters in claims outcomes

Trust changes the temperature of a claim. When injured workers believe the process is fair, understandable, and responsive, they are more likely to share accurate information, engage with treatment, and stay open to return-to-work planning. When they do not, even a medically routine claim can become adversarial.

This is where many organizations underestimate the issue. They invest heavily in technical accuracy, compliance, reserving discipline, and vendor management, all of which matter. But a technically correct claim can still deteriorate if the injured worker experiences confusion, silence, or dismissiveness. In workers’ compensation, perceived indifference often becomes operational friction.

Trust also affects internal alignment. Employers, providers, nurse case managers, adjusters, and legal stakeholders all perform better when expectations are clear and communication is timely. A trusted claims process produces fewer avoidable escalations and more productive collaboration across the life of the file.

How claims teams build trust in the first 72 hours

The first phase of a claim has disproportionate influence. This is when injured workers are forming judgments about whether anyone is listening, whether they will be supported, and whether the process will create more stress than the injury itself.

The strongest claims teams make early contact purposeful. They explain what happens next in plain language, confirm what the employee can expect regarding medical care and wage replacement, and identify who to contact with questions. They do not rely on generic reassurance. They provide clarity.

That distinction matters. Saying, “We are here to help” has limited value if the employee still does not understand when they will hear back, how treatment gets authorized, or why certain forms are required. Trust grows when communication reduces uncertainty.

Speed matters too, but speed without quality can backfire. A rushed first call that sounds scripted or transactional may satisfy a service-level metric while still weakening confidence. Early communication should be timely, respectful, and specific enough to answer the questions people are often too stressed to ask clearly.

Trust is built through explanation, not just contact

Many claims teams track whether contact occurred. Fewer evaluate whether the contact actually improved understanding. That is a critical gap.

Injured workers often enter the claims process with limited knowledge of workers’ compensation rules, medical network requirements, return-to-work procedures, or claim decision timelines. If the adjuster uses internal shorthand or assumes baseline knowledge, confusion expands. Confusion then turns into suspicion, and suspicion frequently invites outside representation.

High-trust claims handling requires explanation as a discipline. That means breaking complex issues into manageable language without sounding patronizing. It means explaining what is known, what is still being reviewed, and what factors may affect timing. It also means being candid when the answer is not yet available.

This is one of the most overlooked trust signals in the industry. People can tolerate delay better than silence, and uncertainty better than mixed messages. What they struggle with is feeling ignored or misled.

Empathy is an operational skill

Empathy in workers’ compensation is often misunderstood as a courtesy layer added to technical work. In reality, it is a claims management skill that improves information quality, cooperation, and recovery engagement.

An injured worker who feels respected is more likely to disclose concerns about pain, transportation, family obligations, job fear, or prior medical issues that may affect claim progression. Those details are not peripheral. They help claims professionals understand barriers before they become disruptions.

Empathy also does not mean agreeing with every position or relaxing claim standards. It means recognizing that an injury affects more than a diagnosis code. Income concerns, job security fears, family strain, and confusion about the system all influence behavior. Claims teams that acknowledge those pressures tend to manage the claim more effectively because they are addressing the human conditions that drive claim decisions.

This is the practical value of a whole-person recovery approach. It reframes the adjuster’s role from file processor to recovery manager, without losing technical rigor. That shift tends to produce better conversations, earlier problem identification, and stronger return-to-work coordination.

Consistency is where credibility is won or lost

Trust can be established quickly, but it is only sustained through consistency. If one conversation is thoughtful and the next three are delayed, vague, or contradictory, the injured worker will rely on the pattern, not the promise.

Consistency shows up in small moments. Calls are returned when promised. Letters match verbal explanations. Employer updates align with claim strategy. Medical direction is communicated clearly. Transitional work conversations happen early instead of after disability duration has already lengthened.

For managers, this is where process design matters. Trust should not depend entirely on individual adjuster style. It should be supported by operating standards, communication protocols, escalation pathways, and training that define what good looks like.

That does not mean forcing every interaction into a script. In fact, overstandardization can make communication sound hollow. The better approach is structured flexibility – clear service expectations combined with professional judgment, active listening, and role-specific communication training.

The manager’s role in building a trusted claims culture

If frontline staff are expected to build trust, leadership has to make it operationally visible. Teams do not prioritize what management treats as secondary.

That starts with measurement. Most organizations monitor lag time, closure rates, litigation rates, and indemnity trends. Those metrics matter, but they should be paired with indicators that reflect trust-building behavior. Contact quality audits, documentation of expectation-setting, complaint trends, attorney conversion patterns, and return-to-work timing can all tell a more complete story.

Coaching is equally important. Claims professionals need feedback not only on technical file handling, but also on how they communicate under pressure, how they explain adverse decisions, and how they respond when an injured worker is frustrated or fearful. Those moments are predictable. They should be trained accordingly.

This is where formal workers’ compensation education can change results. When organizations train communication, empathy, and expectation-setting with the same seriousness as compensability analysis and compliance requirements, they create more consistent performance across the team. WorkCompCollege has built much of its educational model around that exact premise because the industry’s results increasingly depend on both technical and interpersonal competence.

Where claims teams lose trust without realizing it

Most trust failures are not dramatic. They are cumulative.

A benefit delay that is not explained. A voicemail that goes unanswered. A provider issue passed between parties without ownership. An employer promising return-to-work options that the claim team has not confirmed. A denial communicated with legal precision but no human clarity. None of these moments alone defines the claim, but together they shape the injured worker’s view of the entire system.

There is also a trade-off worth recognizing. Efficiency initiatives can improve throughput, but if they reduce communication quality, they may create downstream costs through disputes, disengagement, and avoidable litigation. The right question is not whether teams should be efficient or empathetic. It is how to build workflows that support both.

That usually requires better training, more intentional supervision, and clearer communication standards. It may also require organizations to stop treating trust as intangible. In claims, trust shows up in measurable ways – fewer misunderstandings, better cooperation, earlier recovery planning, and lower friction across the file.

Trust is not a messaging tactic

Claims organizations sometimes try to solve trust issues with better wording alone. Language matters, but trust is not built by polished phrases. It is built when actions, timelines, explanations, and professional behavior stay aligned over time.

That is why the best claims teams are deliberate about what they promise. They avoid overcommitting in the interest of reassurance. They explain constraints honestly. They follow through visibly. And when something changes, they communicate early rather than waiting for dissatisfaction to surface.

In a workers’ compensation environment defined by regulation, stress, and competing interests, trust will never come from good intentions alone. It comes from disciplined claims handling that treats people with respect, communicates with clarity, and manages recovery as both a human and financial outcome.

The claims teams that earn trust are not doing something sentimental. They are doing something highly practical – reducing friction at the exact points where claims tend to get more expensive, more adversarial, and harder to resolve.