“I think workers need a bill of rights,” he said.

In the past decade, he noted, reform efforts have swung the pendulum of workers' comp in favor of employers and their insurers, and “those of us who care about workers have to work to bring that shift back.”

Among the major issues, he explained, is that workers' comp has been depicted as rampant with fraudulent claims and, as a net result, workers have been made to feel shame for claiming what is rightfully theirs.

In speaking with attorneys, Mr. Welch said many have told stories of workers apologizing for coming in to seek help in a compensation dispute, often explaining that, “I'm not like those other people,” who cheat the system.

“Workers gave up their right to sue in exchange for workers' compensation, and we've gotten to a situation where workers feel they have to apologize” for making a claim, he said.

In addition to changing the image of workers' comp as inherently fraudulent, Mr. Welch also called for turning the investigative spotlight on employers.

“We need as much enforcement in payroll fraud as we've had in worker fraud in recent years,” he said, noting that employers who underreport their payroll are a factor in keeping costs higher for all policyholders.

Mr. Welch made his remarks in support of arguments for returning “balance” to the workers' comp system, a theme for other speakers at the event as well.

Bob Steggert, vice president of casualty claims for Marriott International Inc., said states are increasingly competing with each other and with other nations to lure business into their jurisdictions, and the workers' comp climate often plays a role in a firm's decision on where it should be located.

Those states that look at the workers' comp system “from a balanced perspective” tend to do best, he added.

Overall, Mr. Steggert said that all sides of the issue–including labor, employers, insurers and policymakers–need to work together to reach pragmatic solutions that make the system work.

“Pragmatism is far more promising than offering parallel monologues to constituencies,” he said, adding that often those conflicting monologues only serve to confuse and polarize the various constituencies in workers' comp.