Workers’ Comp Board Cuts 566 Jobs as It Rolls Out AI Claims Tools
- Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board laid off 566 unionized and non-unionized employees this month, and workers along with their union, the Ontario Compensation Employees Union, are raising concerns that the cuts are tied to the agency’s push toward automating claims work with artificial intelligence.
- Post-adjustment case manager Brittnee Gauthier, one of those laid off in Sudbury, said WSIB had made a major internal push to roll out an AI claim summary tool shortly before the layoffs, and worries that injured workers will bear the brunt as remaining staff scramble to manage caseloads. She said she had more than 200 claims on her desk at the time of her layoff.
- WSIB awarded a $7.3 million contract to Owl.co for a “claims summary tool subscription” in February, and WSIB CEO Jeff Lang is scheduled to speak at a Las Vegas conference in October alongside Owl.co’s CEO about deploying AI ”at extraordinary scale.” WSIB says the tool is meant to reduce administrative work and help staff understand claims more quickly.
- A customer service representative said employees were tasked with training the AI system by checking its accuracy on policy numbers and dates, and said the tool frequently provided incorrect information, a concern OCEU president Harry Goslin said other employees have echoed. The union has also filed grievances and Freedom of Information Act requests over undisclosed technological changes.
Ohio Supreme Court Sides With Worker in PTO Shaft Injury Case Against Dairy Farm
- The Ohio Supreme Court held that an injured worker only needs to show an employer “deliberately removed” an equipment safety guard to sue under the state’s intentional tort exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity — rejecting the Twelfth District Court’s stricter interpretation that would have also required proof the employer made a “considered decision” not to replace the guard.
- Applying that standard, the court found sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably conclude Gill Dairy deliberately removed the guard, reversing the Twelfth District and reinstating the jury’s verdict. The court relied on testimony that the guard had been missing for years, that the worker had raised safety concerns to an owner and that an accident investigator’s report showed the company altered a purchase quote to falsely suggest it had bought a replacement part.
- The underlying injury occurred when a Gill Dairy worker, caught his clothing in an unguarded, rotating power take-off shaft on a sand spreader in 2019, resulting in severe and permanent injuries to both legs and his left shoulder that required skin grafts and multiple surgeries. A jury had originally awarded Camara more than $1.9 million in damages before the Twelfth District vacated that verdict.
- The ruling clarifies Ohio’s intentional tort standard for employers statewide: Simply failing to repair or replace a known-missing safety guard can expose a company to liability beyond workers’ compensation if a jury finds the removal was deliberate, even without direct proof the employer separately decided against fixing it.
Court Upholds Denial of Survivor Benefits in After Worker’s Fatal Heart Attack
- The Connecticut Appellate Court unanimously upheld the denial of workers’ compensation survivor benefits to the widow of a General Dynamics Electric Boat employee who died in his sleep in February 2020, one day after returning from a three-day business trip to Florida.
- The worker, who had worked at Electric Boat since 1980, began regularly traveling to Cape Canaveral for work in 2019, typically spending two weeks in Florida followed by one week at home while working six days a week. He had preexisting heart conditions including hypertension and aortic stenosis and had gained weight while traveling.
- Zito-Hannan argued the cumulative physical and emotional stress of her husband’s travel and long hours contributed to his fatal cardiac event, but an administrative law judge dismissed the claim in 2024 after crediting medical opinions attributing his death to progressive heart disease rather than work-related stress, a ruling the Connecticut Compensation Review Board affirmed in 2025.
- On appeal, the widow argued the judge improperly required proof of a “sudden or unusual” workplace stressor rather than applying a cumulative-trauma standard, but the appellate court found the judge had considered both theories and declined to reweigh conflicting medical evidence or disturb factual findings supported by the record.