The Workers’ Compensation Rating and Inspection Bureau of Massachusetts v. Commissioner of Insurance, SJC 13807

WCRIB, the only licensed workers' compensation rating organization in Massachusetts, sought review of the commissioner's disapproval of its 2024 and 2025 rate filings. 1
For 2024, WCRIB proposed a 7.6% decrease, but the commissioner disapproved it and ordered a 14.6% decrease without explaining how he reached that figure. 2
For 2025, WCRIB proposed a 7.1% increase, but the commissioner disapproved it and left the 2024 reduced rate in place. 3
The commissioner’s disapproval relied in part on WCRIB’s use of two years of loss data and a challenged underwriting profit methodology, rather than five years of loss data. 4
WCRIB also challenged the commissioner’s class code 9033 ruling, which required use of SIG data rather than countrywide data as the complement to credibility. 5
A single justice reserved and reported both cases to the full court, and the cases were consolidated. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the commissioner reasonably disapprove WCRIB’s proposed rates? 7	WCRIB said its methodology was proper and the disapproval was unsupported.	Commissioner said the filings were excessive or otherwise unreasonable.	Yes; the disapproval was supported by the evidence. 8
Did the commissioner adequately explain the 14.6% decrease? 9	WCRIB argued the specific percentage lacked explanation.	Commissioner said he had authority to order a decrease.	No; remand required for a reasoned explanation of the number. 10
Was the shift from two years to five years of loss data inconsistent or unexplained? 11	WCRIB said the commissioner departed from prior practice without reason.	Commissioner said COVID made recent data anomalous and required five years.	No; the change was reasonably explained. 12
Did the commissioner err in class code 9033 methodology? 13	WCRIB said SIG data should not replace countrywide data and no reasoned basis was given.	Commissioner said his methodology choice was proper.	Further explanation required. 14

Workers' Compensation Rating & Inspection Bur. of Mass. v. Commissioner of Ins., 391 Mass. 238 (Mass. 1984) (commissioner may disapprove only inadequate, excessive, or unfairly discriminatory rates; range-of-reasonableness standard 15)
Massachusetts Auto. Rating & Acc. Prevention Bur. v. Commissioner of Ins., 401 Mass. 282 (Mass. 1987) (agency must state enough findings for effective appellate review 16)
Boston Gas Co. v. Department of Pub. Utils., 367 Mass. 92 (Mass. 1975) (parties are entitled to reasoned consistency in agency decisions 17)
MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc. v. Department of Telecomm. & Energy, 442 Mass. 103 (Mass. 2004) (agency may deviate from prior position if the change is explained 18)
Massachusetts Ass'n of Older Ams. v. Commissioner of Ins., 393 Mass. 404 (Mass. 1984) (range of reasonableness need not be expressed as a specific percentage 19)
Attorney Gen. v. Commissioner of Ins., 442 Mass. 793 (Mass. 2004) (court will not supply a reasoned basis the agency itself did not give 20)