An emergent new trend of using artificial intelligence (AI) to replace human resources employees could pose problems for workers’ compensation defendants tasked with confirming whether or not any injuries occurred on the job.
Human resources is one of the fastest-growing job sectors in the United States, according to SHRM. However, as Slate pointed out in this rather-depressing piece, a new trend of AI chatbots is quickly replacing the humans in human resources. While Slate mostly focused on the use of AI bots during the job interview process, it’s hard to ignore this paragraph and it’s implications for other people in H.R.:
The shift to A.I. among human resources sectors is real. Earlier this month, the CEO of IBM confirmed that the company had laid off “a couple hundred” HR workers and replaced them with A.I. agents. A recent survey of 500 HR professionals also found that almost three-quarters of them believe they’re adopting the technology more quickly than other departments. Despite this, HR remains among the fastest-growing sectors in the U.S., with the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicting an 8 percent growth by 2033. According to the HR Digest magazine, although A.I. can be used in this field to automate “an unnecessary amount of manual work,” like payroll management and vacation requests, it can’t yet “oversee the human section” or company culture.
For those who investigate allegations of work-related injuries, it’s an unsettling to say the least to anticipate a future where the HR department at defendant employers is now a team of bots. Your humble blogger cannot anticipate a future where an applicant would testify at a deposition, “Yes, I told the bot that I injured my knee at work. It asked if I would like to see a doctor, gave me a DWC1 form, and sent me to the industrial clinic.”
Instead, that testimony is more likely to be, “Well, I tried to tell the bot that I injured my knee at work, but it:
- Didn’t work (ie didn’t allow me to tell it what the problem was)
- Didn’t offer me a DWC1 form or medical care”
Regardless of whether the testimony in this second hypothetical scenario is true or exaggerated or an outright lie, how is a defense attorney supposed to call a bot as a witness?
To play Devil’s Advocate, it is possible that there could be some electronic record of such an interaction, but it would probably not have the complexity, credibility, and reliability of human witness testimony.
Then there’s the more practical side of where workers’ compensation professionals interact with HR. For instance, it’s common for adjusters and attorneys to email HR professionals to inquire about injury reporting, witness availability, missed work, work restrictions, wages/earnings, use of temporary workers, and other day-to-day details.
Relying on your humble blogger’s background as a tech support analyst, AI software is probably not going to be savvy enough to know to trust their workers’ compensation carrier’s adjuster or defense attorney. My cynical view is that it will be limited to whoever has permission to access it, and outsiders such as defense attorneys and adjusters will not be granted permission for security reasons.
At the end of the day, workers’ compensation practitioners prefer to be able to talk to the humans in human resources, look them in the eye, and ask questions about a very human thing – was another human injured at work? Could there have been an injury report that was forgotten about by a supervisor? Did human error occur along the way? Are there other human insights into the claim, such as a history of disciplinary actions or unusual behavior that would give us defenses against the claim?
This level of complexity is probably not needed for an accepted specific date of injury to a single body part. But when it comes to psyche cases with complex defenses – such as the good faith personnel action defense – this type of human insight is worth the entire claim itself.
CONCLUSION
Innovation is going to happen, and we at the Law Offices of Bradford and Barthel have been embracing technology ever since we were one of the first firms to use cloud-based computing. That being said, we need to keep the humans in Human Resources for a plethora of reasons, with injury reporting being perhaps one of the most relevant ones.
Got a question about workers’ compensation defense issues? Feel free to contact John P. Kamin. Mr. Kamin is a workers’ compensation defense attorney and partner at Bradford & Barthel’s Woodland Hills location, where he monitors the recent legislative affairs as the firm’s Director of the Editorial Board. Mr. Kamin previously worked as a journalist for WorkCompCentral, where he reported on work-related injuries in all 50 states. Please feel free to contact John at jkamin@bradfordbarthel.com or at (818) 654-0411.
Viewing this website does not form an attorney/client relationship between you and Bradford & Barthel, LLP or any of its attorneys. This website is for informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice. Please do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read on this site. This document is not a substitute for legal advice and may not address every factual scenario. If you have a legal question, we encourage you to contact your favorite Bradford & Barthel, LLP attorney to discuss the legal issues applicable to your unique case. No website is entirely secure, so please be cautious with information provided through the contact form or email. Do not assume confidentiality exists in anything you send through this website or email, until an attorney/client relationship is formed.