The language of that section, as in effect at the time of the employee's injury, leads us to conclude that the judge should have given the board an opportunity "to apply its expertise to the statutory scheme. As pointed out in Marsch v. The judge indicated that there was no need to empanel a jury. Her first claim that she should have been allowed to intervene on behalf of herself and her children after the time permitted under G. The applicable statute is G. While it may be argued with some plausibility that the term "trial" in the first quoted portion of the statute is ambiguous, see Globe Newspaper Co. The agreement reached here long preceded any trial and does not fall within the statutory exception. Two cases consolidated in this court for purposes of argument arise out of a June 26, , injury to an employee who has been receiving worker's compensation since that date.