Details of Return-to-Work Programs

The actual process of returning an injured employee to work begins when the physician releases the employee. Frequently, the physician only provides the insurance provider or the employer with the return-to-work date. Written clarification to the employee of the return-to-work date must be made by the carrier/employer.

When the verification has been sent on when the employee may return to work, there may or may not be limitations indicated by the doctor. They should be specific enough for the employer to make an accurate judgment as to what duties the employee is physically able to perform. Specific forms should be developed to determine what the injured worker’s restrictions are. The employer should concentrate on the worker’s abilities rather than the disabilities. Asking the doctor what he can perform rather than what he cannot perform is a good first step. Some employers may want to consider having a Functional Capacities Evaluation performed by a qualified evaluator.

The offered job does not have to be the exact job the employee was executing at the time of the injury. Likewise, it does not have to be the same hours of employment. The job simply has to fit the limitations indicated by the doctor, and be within the worker’s abilities. The employer can try to be original in developing such a job, using an injured employee to perform light duty jobs. An employer should not insist that the injured employee have a full release form the doctor before he is allowed to return to work; such a position could be in violation of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).

Altered duty jobs should be acknowledged within an organization before accidents occur. An official transitional return-to-work program should already be recognized. The job descriptions should be completed so there is a clear understanding of the requirements. All of these actions make the physician’s job of reviewing the exact job that is being offered easier and can then also give an opinion as to the employee’s capability in performing the responsibilities of the job. Alternate work programs are oftentimes damaged by an unknowing supervisor unaware of the injured employee’s medical restrictions.

Many times an employer does not offer light duty jobs because no jobs are available. This is when an alternate plan is developed. For example, a Midwest department store had a hard time establishing a light duty program for its warehouse workers. The store sent its workers to pre-approved community service positions with full pay and benefits. The employer would no doubt be required to agree to be responsible for any possible liability if the employee was injured in the community service position. There is the possibility of an employee refusing the job altogether. The employer is required to re-offer it to him on a periodic basis. If the employee continues to refuse, you can continue to deny him indemnity benefits.

At times the employee can be reluctant to return to work for fear of adverse effects on the other employees and widespread moral within the company. This can happen if the injured employee is a troublemaker or someone with less than satisfactory work habits. The employer should move the injured employee away from others so the he cannot affect the performance of other employees. He could also change the hours of the employee. In short, do anything within reason to get that worker back on the job and away from the costly payment of workers’ compensation.

REFUSAL

The refusal to take the employee back by the employer is a huge cause of failure of the workers’ compensation system in Florida. If the employer will not hire back the employee it is questionable that other employers will hire this same person. There is a huge difficulty in securing employment if the employee is disabled or has a pending workers’ compensation claim. Locating work under these conditions is very limited. This could possibly cause a very long term pay out of benefits.

It has been proven that medical costs are significantly higher for the unemployed disabled employee who spends most of the day thinking about his injuries as compared to the employee who has returned to a job. Medical costs are now over 60% of all benefits paid in the worker’s compensation system. Every effort should be made to reduce these payments.

Some worker’s compensation carriers have tried to stop the spiraling costs associated with continued payment of compensation, rehabilitation, and medical expenses by settling cases. Settlements can be an effective way of controlling an employer’s long term workers’ compensation costs. Employers should not be unwilling to provide post-injury employment which can be the driving factor in establishing the value of such settlements.

In 2003, the NCCI released statistics showing attorney involvement in only 4% of the cases in which the injured employee returned to his old job. The average cost of a workers’ compensation case where no attorney is involved was $10, 424. With the attorney involvement the average cost was $41,584. This is just further evidence that a return-to-work program should be put in to position in the work place, and is cost friendly.